m 

.Q-2 



Issued March 21, 1908. 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU OF SOILS— BULLETIN No. 48. 
MIL.TO>f WHITNEY, Chief. 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED 
BY MANURES. 



BY 



FRANK D. GARDNER. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OF*^ICE. 

19 8. 




Glass. 






^Il5l 



Rnnk Q P 2. 



i 



Issued March 21, 190S. 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

BUREAU OF SOILS— BULLETIN No. 48. 

MILTON WHITNEY, Chief. 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED 
BY MANURES. 



BY 



FRANK D. GARDNER. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1908. 



CL-r-^-"-^ 



7^ 






V 



APR 1 19C8 

A Ota 



^ 

x: 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Soils, 
Washington, D. C, June 21^, 1907. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit a manuscript entitled FertiHty 
of Soils as Affected by Manures, by Frank D. Gardner, in charge of 
Soil Management. It embodies the results of a uniform scheme of 
manurial treatments, as measured by the resulting increase in plant 
growth on soils collected from 220 fields in 23 States, located in the 
eastern half of the United States. 

The increasing use of manures, and especially of commercial 
fertilizers, by the farmers of the United States is sufficient justifica- 
tion for careful investigations as to the relative efficiency of various 
forms of manures on different soils. You will find here a vast amount 
of data, treated in a manner commensurate with the importance of 
the subject. It should be of great value to all who are interested in 
the use of manures. 

The manuscript has been gone over carefully with Assistant Secre- 
tary Hays, who concurs in my recommendation for its publication 
as Bulletin No. 48 of the Biu-eau of Soils. 
Respectfully, 

Milton Whitney, 

Chief of Bureau. 
Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Introduction 7 

Object of the investigations 9 

The soils 10 

The method , 10 

Fertilizers used 13 

Calculation of results 13 

Arrangement and tabulation of results 15 

Comparative efficiency of salts used separately and in combination 24 

Nitrate of soda alone and with other salts 31 

Sulphate of potash alone and with other salts 32 

Acid phosphate alone and with other salts 32 

Lime alone and with fertilizer salts 33 

Relative efficiency of organic and chemical manures 37 

Relative efficiency of all salts and combinations, when soils are grouped accord- 
ing to efficiency of PKN 38 

Relative efficiency of salts when used alone and in combination .- 39 

Relation of fertilizer requirements to character of soils 44 

Relative efficiency of fertilizers by locality 46 

Comparative fertility of soils 47 

Relative response to fertilizers and expenditures for fertilizers 48 

Average efficiency of fertilizer salts, by locality 50 

Comparative efficiency of fertilizers, by soil series 51 

Efficiency of fertilizer as related to soil texture 53 

Natural fertility as related to responsiveness to fertilizers 53 

Fertilizers and economy of water in plant growth 54 

Summary 56 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 



Fig. 1. Percentage increase in growth of plants, attributable to various ferti- 
lizer treatments of five principal soil types of the Waycross area, 
Georgia = = = .. 44 

2. Percentage increase in growth of plants, attributable to various ferti- 

lizer treatments for all soils of Waycross area, Georgia, and Escambia 
County, Fla 45 

3. Percentage gain in plant growth attributable to each of the salts P, K, X, 

and L when used alone 59 

4. Relative efficiency of fertilizer ingredients by soil series, when the ingre- 

dients are used alone 52 

5. Percentage increase in growth of plants attributable to fertilizer and 

accompanying increase per unit of water transpired. Average of 20 

soils 55 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES." 



INTRODUCTION. 



The use of manures as a means of increasing the growth of crops 
dates back to ancient times. At the time of the discovery of America, 
the North American Indians used dead fish as a manure for corn. 
The Peruvians have used guano since the beginning of their recorded 
history, and the Chinese have long recognized the vahie of all kinds 
of excrements as fertilizers. In the early part of the last century 
De Saussure established the existence of the mineral constituents of 
the soil in plants, and while he believed that they were essential to the 
life of plants, his contemporaries regarded them as nonessential, 
or at the best useful only as a kind of stimulant. 

Justus Von Liebig, as a result of his investigations, published in 
1843 a new edition of his notable work, "Chemistry in its Application 
to Agriculture and Physiology," in which it may be said he laid the 
foundation of the celebrated "mineral theory" of agriculture. 

Prior to the time of liebig the use of manures and fertilizers was 
purely an art, the beneficial results of which had not been satisfac- 
torily explained. Liebig's mineral plant food theory, apparently 
so ample, and in time widely accepted, attributed the beneficial 
effect of fertilizers solely to the plant food constituents which were 
supplied to the growing plants, and thereby laid the foundation for the 
compounding of fertilizers to meet the needs of soils and crops. 
There soon sprang into existence a soil chemistr^^ which had for its 
object an investigation of the stores of plant food in soils with a 
view to ascertaining the agricultural value of lands, as well as the 
character and amount of fertilizer, if any, that would give the largest 
net crop income per acre. It was soon learned that the soil con- 
stituents existed in various forms or compounds not all of which 
were available as plant food, and this led to a study of inexpensive 
methods of determining the available constituents, a study which 
has formed no small part of soil chemistry even down to the present 

a A comparative study of the fertility of the soils of the central and eastern United 
States, as influenced by manures and fertilizers and measured by the paraffin-pot 
method. 

28220— Bull. 48—08 2 7 



8 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

time, with little indication that a method will ever be devised that 
will prove universally satisfactory for all soils and crops. 

So far as can be gleaned from the writings of soil investigators, only 
within recent years have any considerable number of them come to 
realize that there is no definite relation between the available plant 
food constituents of soils, as determined by mineral analysis, and 
their crop-yielding capacities. Neither had they arrived at that 
further realization that the crop-yielding capacity of a soil is 
dependent upon a complexity of factors, any one of which may be 
dommant, but all of which are concerned in large or small degree. 

Arable soils contain the organic remains of previous crops together 
with excretions produced during their growth and are also filled with 
living forms. Their bacterial flora is diversified and the activities 
and processes which take place within the soil, physical, chemical, 
and biological, are exceedingly complex, and at present but imper- 
fectly understood. It is the sum total of these activities and their 
products that determines largely the fitness of a soil for plants, 
rather than the variation in the character and composition of its 
mineral matter. \Vhile manure and fertilizers may often increase 
crop yields as a result of a direct supply of plant food or as a 
stimulant to the plants, there is now abundant evidence that their 
effect is rather the result of a direct action upon the soil, thereby 
changmg its relation to plants. Complex and imperfectly under- 
stood as is this action, it is a more satisfactory explanation of the 
benefits derived from fertilizers than the idea that the inconsequential 
amounts of nitrogen, potash, and phosphorus applied, as compared 
with the larger stores of those elements already in the soil, should 
be directly responsible for such marked increase in growth as fre- 
quently follows the application of fertilizers. 

The prime object of manuring the soil, whether with stable manure, 
green manure, or commercial fertilizers, is to increase its crop- 
jaelding capacity, and in order to justify the practice the resulting 
increase in product must be more than enough to offset the cost of 
the fertilizers applied. That is to say, the beneficial effect on the 
present and succeeding crops must be sufficient to compensate for the 
cost of the fertilizers and give a profit on the capital so invested. 

The first noteworthy use of commercial fertilizers in the United 
States was in 1848, during which year there was imported 1,000 tons 
of guano. This was followed the succeeding year by twent}^ times 
that quantity, after which date the importation steadily increased 
until 1880, when it reached its maximum and began to fall off because 
of a failing supply. Other materials, notably sodium nitrate from 
Chile and the potash salts from Germany, have taken the place of the 
failing supply of guano, and these, together with the development of 
our phosphate mines, the use of cotton-seed meal, and the utilization 



OBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. 9 

of slaughterhouse by-products, have met the continually increasing 
demand for commercial fertilizers by our farmers. According to our 
census reports, the expenditure for fertilizers in the United States 
in 1880 was $28,500,000. Ten years later it was $38,500,000, and in 
1900 it reached the significant sum of $54,750,000. There seems 
little doubt that this rate of increase in the use of fertilizers will 
continue for some time to come, and the subject is one of sufficient 
national importance to justify careful investigations. 

OBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

The object of this investigation is not for the purpose of explaining 
how fertilizers act nor of studying the relation of the composition of 
the soil to the beneficial effect of the fertilizer when applied to it, 
but rather to compare the effects of several liigh-grade standard 
fertilizer ingredients, lime, stable manure, and cowpea vines when 
applied under like conditions to a large number of soils, collected 
from widely separated areas and representing a wide range in soil 
texture, type, origin, and crop adaptation. By making a comparative 
test of a large number of soils it was thought that there might be 
established a relation between the manurial requirements and the 
origin, formation, type, or crop adaptation of the soil. 

While there has been recorded in agricultural literature, in the 
aggregate, a large number of field tests of fertilizers on a great variety 
oi soils, representing nearly every State in the eastern half of the 
United States, it is impossible to make a satisfactory comparison of 
the results obtained, because of the innumerable details in which the 
conditions of the tests do not agree. The variation in the amount, 
class, kind, and composition of the fertilizer used, the time and 
manner of its application, the test crop used, and the weather condi- 
tions which prevailed form such a wide range of possible combinations 
that it is rare to find two tests that are strictly comparable. 

In the present investigation the same variety of wheat was used 
throughout as the test crop, and all of the conditions for growth, 
excepting the manurial treatments to be tested, were maintained as 
nearly uniform as possible. With the same fertilizer ingredients, in 
like form and used in the same combinations, for a crop common to 
all, the results obtained from this large number of soils are strictly 
comparable, and far exceed in number any similar tests that can be 
brought together on such a basis. 

Mention should also be made of the fact that all tests reported in 
the following tables under areal surveys — and they constitute fully 
four-fifths of them — were made for the further purpose of gaining 
practical knowledge concerning the manurial requirements of the 
principal soil types as established by the soil survey parties and with 



10 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

the ultimate object of determining what manures or fertihzers would 
give best results on the soils. The results of all such tests are reported 
in general terms in the soil survey reports for the respective areas in 
which they occur. 

THE SOILS. 

The soils tested in this investigation, 220 in number, represent 90 
types, half that number of soil series, and many geological forma- 
tions. The samples were taken from twenty-three States, extending 
from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic seaboard and from Rhode 
Island to Texas. With the exception of a limited number of mis- 
cellaneous samples, the greater number were collected from areas 
that were in process of being surveyed by the Bureau of Soils dur- 
ing the summer of 1905, and the following winter, and are representa- 
tive of the soils of those areas rather than the vast expanse of country 
included in the twenty-three States al)ove mentioned. Each sample, 
being a composite, made up of fifteen or twenty small samples, taken 
from different parts of the same field, is representative of the field from 
which it is taken as well as the type which it represents. The sam- 
ples were placed in strong grain bags and shipped to the Bureau's 
headquarters, where they were at once transferred to covered gal- 
vanized iron cans for storage. In this way the original condition 
and original moisture content were, as far as practicable, maintained 
until they could be tested. This is important in relation to the test, 
for it has been found by experience that as a result of long storage 
and resulting air-dry condition soils become more productive and 
are usually less responsive to fertilizers than when such a change is 
prevented. 

THE METHOD. 

The paraffin-pot method, described in Circular No. 18 of this 
Bureau and in the appendix to Farmers' Bulletin No. 257 of Iho 
United States Department of Agriculture, was employed in these tests, 
and while it is not designed to supersede field tests, results obtained 
with it, when compared with results obtained on the same soils at 
the agricultural experiment stations in Rhode Island,*^ New York, 
Ohio,'* Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina, show that it will indicate 
the manurial requirements of soils for general farm crops with a fair 
degree of accuracy. It is also admirably adapted to an investigation 
of the character described in the following pages. 

The soil to be tested is thoroughly pulverized by crushing all lumps, 
and if containing stone or gravel this is removed by sifting. The 
sample is then thoroughly mixed and equal amounts weighed into 

a See Bui. 109 of the Rhode Island Expt. Sta. 

b See Buls. Nos. 167 and 168 of the Ohio Agricultural Expt. Sta. 



THE METHOD. 11 

granite-ware pans, where they receive their respective apphcations 
of manure or fertiHzers and are made up to their optimum water 
content with distilled water. After remaining in the pans for about 
a week, being occasionally wet with distilled water, and frequently 
stirred in order to secure a thorough incorporation of the fertilizer 
and a good soil condition, it is ready to pot and plant. Five small 
wire-gauze pots are used for each treatment. About 350 grams of 
soil is then placed in each pot, uniformly packed, and planted with 
six selected germinated kernels of wheat, after which the pots are 
dipped in melted paraffin, which not only forms an intimate contact 
with the soil but makes the pot water tight. The soil is then cov- 
ered with a thin layer of washed quartz sand and the pot and con- 
tents weighed and weight recorded. The pots are next placed in 
trays and given a favorable exposure in the greenhouse for three or 
four days or until the plants attain a height of about 1^ inches, at 
which time the pots are sealed. The sealing consists of covering 
the tops with paraffined paper disks in which are slits through which 
the plants grow. The disks are sealed to the sides of the pots by 
rheans of melted paraffin. The loss of water by direct evaporation 
from the soil is in this way reduced to a negligible quantity. 

During the growing of the plants, which usually continues from 
eighteen to twenty-one days from the date of sealing, the pots are 
weighed at intervals of two or three days and watered with distilled 
water in order to retain a favorable moisture content for plant 
growth. By this method the loss of water or the amount transpired 
by the plants may be ascertained periodically, and at the end of the 
experiment the total amount of water given off through the plants 
of each pot obtained for comparison with the growth and green 
weight of the plants, which is ascertained by cutting and weighing 
the plants at the time the experiment is concluded. All conditions 
of the experiment are so carefully controlled that the average result 
of five pots rarely differs more than 5 per cent from the average 
result of any other five pots that have been treated throughout in 
precisely the same manner (see Table I). Differences which occur 
beyond this amount may therefore safely be attributed to the different 
manurial treatments which have been given. Tliis method has 
several advantages over the growing of plants in open and porous 
pots. The method of coating the soil with paraffin prevents any 
accumulation of roots between the soil and the receptacle, a trouble 
which is common in pot experiments. The complete sealing up of 
the soil also enables the experimenter to determine the amount of 
water which the plant has actually used and transpired in its process 
of growth, and this, together with the small size of the pots, enables 
the moisture content and its fluctuations to be carefully controlled. 



12 



FERTILITY OP SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



On good soils, or as a result of favorable treatment, plants are 
produced in the little pots in twentj^-five daj^s or less time, the green 
weight of wliich sometimes equals or exceeds 1 per cent of the weight 
of the soil in wliich they grew. Such plants are approximately 85 
per cent water; they have transpired about 100 units of water for 
each unit of green matter produced, and their dry matter is relatively 
richer in mineral constituents and nitrogen than that of mature 
plants. On this basis, an acre foot of soil, weighing 3,500,000 pounds, 
would produce 35,000 pounds of green matter, requiring for its pro- 
duction the equivalent of 17^ inches of rainfall. This green matter 
would be equivalent to 5,900 pounds of air-dry material, or about 
50 bushels of wheat and H tons of straw to an acre. While the 
removal of green matter equal to 1 per cent of the soil in the little pots 
is somewhat above the average, it serves as an illustration of the 
heavy draft made upon the soil in a very short time, a draft, as 
regards moisture and mineral constituents, although part of the 
latter comes from the seed, greater than that which takes place under 
field conditions by the removal of a large mature crop, assuming 
that the removal takes place to a depth not greater than 1 foot, 
which for wheat and similar crops would be approximately correct, 
and providing also the movement of plant food by capillarity from 
below 1 foot be ignored. 

Table I. — Actual transpiration in grams for each of twenty pots, on three soils, under 
uniform, treatment, and the percentage variation from the average for each pot, also average 
percentage variation of each group of five pots. 



Leonardtown loam 


. Corn. 


Cecil clay— poor. 


Leonardtown loam. 


Transpi- 
ration. 


Variation. 


Transpi- 
ration. 


Variation. 


Transpi- 
ration. 


Variation. 


For eacti 


For each 


For 5 


For each 


For each 


For 5 


For each 


For each 


For 5 


pot. 


pot. 


pots. 


pot. 


pot. 


pots. 


pot. 


pot. 


pots. 


Grams. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Grams. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Grams. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


69.9 


- 5.5 




39.3 


+10.1 




87.5 


+ 0.4 




77.6 


+ 4.9 




25.7 


-28.0 




90.5 


+ 3.9 




58.7 


-20.1 


■ -0.9 


37.7 


+ 5.6 


■ -2.8 


89.1 


+ 2.2 


■ +3.3 


83.5 


+ 12.8 




34.8 


- 2.5 




98.4 


+ 12.9 




76.5 


+ 3.3 




35.9 


+ 0.6 




84.8 


- 2.6 




59.1 


-20.2 




■35.8 


+ 0.3 




89.9 


+ 3.2 




72.1 


- 2.6 




37.3 


+ 4.4 




99.2 


+ 13.9 




79.2 


+ 7.0 


-3.0 


38.6 


+ 8.1 


■ +4.1 


87.7 


+ 0.7 


■ +1.6 


73.9 


- 0.2 




35.4 


- 0.8 




80.5 


- 7.6 




74.1 


+ 0.8 




38.9 


+ 8.9 




85.2 


- 2.2 




82.3 


+ 11.1 




38.8 


+ 8.6 




79.8 


- 8.4 1 




66.8 


- 9.8 




33. 6 


- 5.9 




79.5 


-8.7 




70.6 


- 4.6 


• +2.2 


37.8 


+ 5.9 


• +0.8 


86.1 


- 1.1 


• -2.7 


68.9 


- 6.9 




38.1 


+ 6.7 




88.8 


+ 1.9 




89.9 


+21.4 




31.7 


-11.2 




89.5 


+ 2.7 




84.3 


+ 13.8 




34.7 


- 2.8 




82.4 


- 6.4 




79.0 


+ 6.7 




32.3 


- 9.5 




83.0 


- 4.7 




76.4 


+ 3.2 


• +2.0 


39.8 


+ 11.2 


■ -2.5 


94.3 


+ 8.2 


-2.1 


68.3 


- 7.7 




36.9 


+ 3.4 




87.4 


+ 0.3 




69. 7 


- 5.8 




31.2 


-12.6 




79.3 


- 8.9 





FERTILIZERS USED. 



13 



FERTILIZERS USED. 

In this investigation the tests were confined to the use of high-grade, 
standard fertilizing materials, consistmg of nitrate of soda, sulphate 
of potash, and acid phosphate, together with air-slaked lime, well- 
decomposed stable manure, and green cowpea vines. These ingredi- 
ents were applied to the soil separately and in various combinations 

as follows: 

Treatment and rate per acre. 

1. Untreated. 

2. Manure, 10 tons. 

3. Lime, 1 ton. 

4. Nitrate of soda, 200 pounds. 

5. Sulphate of potash, 200 pounds. 

6. Acid phosphate, 200 pounds. 

7. Nitrate of soda and sulphate of potash, 200 pounds each. 

8. Nitrate of soda and acid phosphate, 200 pounds each. 

9. Sulphate of potash and acid phosphate, 200 pounds eacli. 

10. Nitrate of soda, sulphate of potash, and acid phosphate, 200 pounds each. 

11. Same, plus lime, 2,000 pounds. 

12. Cowpea vines 5 tons, lime 2,000 pounds. 

The rate of application is based on the weight of an acre of soil to the 
depth of 7 inches, which is approximately 2,000,000 pounds. The fer- 
tilizers were applied in solution, and the lime, manure, and cowpea 
vines in bulk, each being finely ground. 

CALCULATION OF RESULTS. 

While tliis report combines the results of more than 13,000 pots, 
individual record of which has been made, the results were reported 
on forms, of which the following is a sample : 

[Can 101.] 

Actual transpiration and green weight and relative transpiration and green iveight of SO 
wheat plants on the basis of 100 for the untreated soil. 

Soil: Norfolk Sandy Loam. Locality: Waycross, Ga. 

Planted: Aprils. Sealed AprillO. Disctd.: April 28. Basket Nos.: 2066-2125. 



Num- 
ber. 



Treatment and parts per million.a 



Transpira- 
» tion, 
18 days 



Green 
weight. 



Relative varia- 
tion by — 



Transpi- Green 
ration, weight. 



Untreated 

Manure 10,000 

Cowpeas 5,000, lime 1,000 

Nitrate of soda, potassium sulphate, and acid phos- 
phate 100 each 

Same + lime 1,000 

Nitrate of soda and potassium sulphate 100 each. . 

Nitrate of soda and acid phosphate 100 each 

Nitrate of soda 100 

Potassium sulphate 100 

Potassium sulphate and acid phosphate 100 each . . 

Lime 1,000 

Acid phosphate 100 



757.6 
1295.2 
1135.7 

1160.3 

1090. 1 

1047. 2 
997.6 

1053. 
925.9 
833.6 
803.0 
651.9 



7.0 
14.2 
13.6 

11.5 
11.0 
10.8 
9.6 
9.5 
8.0 
8.0 
7.0 
6.5 



100 
171 
150 

153 
144 
139 
132 
139 
122 
110 
106 
86 



100 
203 
194 

164 
157 
154 
137 
136 
114 
114 
100 
93 



a Parts per million multiplied by 2 equals the pound rate per acre on the basis of 2,000,000 pounds as 
the weight of an acre of soil 7 inches deep. 



14 



FEKTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MAISTUKES. 



On tliis form are given the total transpiration and total weight of 
green plants for each treatment, consisting of five pots. The trans- 
piration and the green weight of plants for each treatment are 
entered in the third and fourth columns, respectively, wliile the 
relative transpiration and weight, based on 100 for the untreated 
soil, are given in the fifth and sixth columns and are merely com- 
puted from the actual transpiration and weight in order to convert 
the comparison to a percentage basis and make it more simple. 

The variation by transpiration, wliile a good indication of the 
relative growth and effect of the treatments, frequently gives a range 
of lesser magnitude than the actual growth of plants. Plants that 
have made a marked increase in growth as a result of soil treatment 
usually contain a higher percentage of water than untreated ones 
and therefore show a slightly lesser variation by dry, or water-free, 
weight than by green weight. See Table II, wliicli follows. The 
increase in growth is also accompanied by an improvement in con- 
dition which can only be measured by appearance, but wliich will 
usually prove an advantage to the better plants if grown to maturity. 
The results given in this bulletin are all based on the actual green 
weight of plants, the weighings being made immediately upon cutting 
the plants and under uniform conditions. 

Table II. — Percentage gain or loss attributable to various fertilizer treatments on 

four soils. 

[P=acid phosphate. K=sulphate of potash. N=nitrate of soda. L=lime. M=stable manure.] 

A.— BASED ON GREEN WEIGHT OF PLANTS GROWN ON UNTREATED SOILS. 





Green 
weight 
of plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soils. 






Percentage gain or 


loss attributable to — 




Soil. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 




Grams. 
8.8 
8.8 
8.3 
6.5 




- 1 
16 

- 7 


- 2 
1 

7 
15 


- 4 


47 
8 




9 

- 6 

41 




14 

7 
47 
12 


- 4 

5 

46 

22 


5 

6 
10 

1 




9 


Cecil clay, poor 




-14 






17 


Leonardtown loam, poor.. 




24 








7.6 


2 


5 


13 




11 


20 


17 


5 




9 









B.— BASED ON DRY WEIGHT OF PLANTS GROWN ON .UNTREATED SOILS. 





Dry 

weight 
of plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soils. 






Percentage gain or loss attributable to— 


Soil. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


Cecil clay, good 


Grams. 
L60 
1.55 
L20 
L22 


- 1 

- 3 
13 

2 


-11 

- 4 

4 

18 


- 9 

3? 
5 




- 1 

- 8 
25 




3 

8 
47 

9 


13 

5 

36 

24 


-5 
-1 

8 
6 




-11 






-17 


Leonardtown loam, good. 
Leonardtown loam, poor.. 




18 















1.39 


3 


2 


8 




4 


17 


19 


2 














ARRANGEMENT AND TABULATION OF RESULTS. 



15 



ARRANGEMENT AND TABULATION OF RESULTS. 

Table III, which follows, gives the actual green weight of plants 
grown on the untreated soils and the percentage increase or tlecrease 
in growth, the latter indicated by the minus ( — ) sign, resulting from 
th^ various fertilizer ingredients and combinations. The data arc 
arranged by States, areas, and types and averages are given for areas 
and for types within areas. The sjniibols at the head of the columns 
are used for the sake of brevity. P stands for acid phosphate ; K for 
sulphate of potash; N for nitrate of soda; L for air-slaked lime; M for 
well-rotted stable manure, and Cv for green cowpea vines. The ingre- 
dients and rate of application are given in the preceding form. All 
data resulting from the tests are embodied in Table III. Marked 
variations from the general trend are exceptional and most frequently 
occur with manure or cowpea vines. These substances have occa- 
sionally given negative results apparently as a result of decomposition 
products from which the soil did not have sufficient time to recover 
prior to the planting of the seed. The blanks in the table indicate no 
tests for the ingretlients or combinations heading the columns in which 
they occur. Practically all such omissions occurred in miscellaneous 
samples which were tested by the Bureau parties at several of the 
State experiment stations. Table III gives the results for 220 soils 
and from these results many tabulations w^ere made, parts of which 
are given on subsequent pages. The arrangement and segregation 
of data in subsequent tables are for the purpose of a further compara- 
tive study of the facts as well as to enable the reader to verify state- 
ments that may follow in the text, although a number of facts are 
given from tabulations other than those wdiich follow. 

Table III. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations. 





Weight 
of 

plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 

soil. 


Gain or loss attributable to— 


Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


WISCONSIN. 

Portage County: 

Miami stony sand 

Miami sand 


Grams. 
9.9 
6.0 
9.0 

11.0 
8.4 

10.0 
8.7 


P.ct. 
6 

7 

4 
- 1 

7 
-11 

2 


P.ct. 
13 
15 

8 

- 2 
9 

- 9 
-16 


P.ct. 
11 
33 
2 
14 
31 

- 6 

- 2 


P.ct. 

- 3 
5 

- 1 
2 

13 

- 1 
5 


P.ct. 
•11 
24 
10 
3 
23 
-10 
- 9 


P.ct. 
21 
29 
14 
16 
32 

- 3 
10 


P.ct. 

22 

39 

3 

4 

35 

3 

1 


P.ct. 

- 3 
7 
4 
2 
11 
5 
9 


P.ct. 
19 
43 
21 
3 
8 
10 
-14 


P.ct. P.ct. 
47 8 
80 4 


Miami sandy loam 

Marshall gravelly loam 
Marshall sand 


29 
36 
34 
21 
42 


12 
14 
3 


Portage silt loam 

Portage silt loam 


10 
-14 


Average for area 


9.0 


2 


3 


12 


3 


7 


17 


15 


5 


13 


41 


4 


MISSOURI. 

Crawford County: 

Clarksville silt loam. . . 

Wabash silt loam 

Clarksville stony loam. 


6.6 
7.6 
14.6 


26 

-11 

4 


15 

1 
3 


17 

- 3 

- 2 


27 

- 2 

- 9 


25 
3 

2 


15 

- 5 

11 


7 

- 1 

3 


14 



- 3 


1 

2 

- 2 


43 

23 

-10 


32 
24 
13 


Average for area 


9.6 1 6 


6 


4 


5 


10 


7 


3 


4 





19 


23 



28220— Bull. 48—08- 



16 



FEKTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table III. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued . 





Weight 

plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Gain or loss attributable to— 


Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


MISSOURI— continued. 

Scotland County: 

Shelby silt loam 

Miscellaneous: 

Loess, McBain County 


Grams. 
9.6 

7.8 
7.0 
5.9 


P.ct. 

7 

8 


P.ct. 
24 

22 


P.ct. 
14 

28 


P.ct. 
22 

26 
25 
29 


P.ct. 
17 

26 
50 
54 


P.ct. 
32 

47 
60 
44 


P.ct. 
28 

50 
68 
61 


P.ct. 
11 

19 
25 

7 


P.ct. 

28 


P.ct. 
69 

23 
57 
34 


P.ct. 
30 

35 


Clay loam, Salem 


50 
66 


35 


Silt loam, Columbia. . . 








50 












INDIANA. 

Newton County: 

Marshall fine sandy 


6.3 
7.6 
12.6 


5 

17 

-21 


12 

22 

- 2 


9 

17 

-14 




20 

- 8 


5 

14 

-23 


12 
21 
13 


- 4 
16 

-17 


-12 

22 
-12 


- 1 
21 

- 7 


60 

77 
32 


— 2 




34 


Clyde fine sand 


- 4 


Average for area 


8.8 





11 


4 


4 


- 1 


15 


- 2 


- 1 


4 


56 


9 


Tippecanoe County: 

Marshall silt loam 


7.2 
7.5 


4 

- 3 

30 


1 
2 
21 


6 

7 
28 


10 

- 6 

26 


58 


3 

18 
46 


12 
6 

58 


- 7 

- 3 
17 


6 

7 
35 


- 2 
42 
71 


4 

— 2 


Miami silt loam 

Average for area 


5.6 


30 


6.8 


10 


8 


14 


10 


31 


22 


25 


2 


16 


37 


11 


OHIO. 

Westerville area: 

Miami black clay loam. 
Miami clay loam 


8.3 
6.1 
8.6 


-11 
11 

- 8 


6 

5 

, 3 


- 2 
15 

- 2 


9 

3 

- 3 


13 

27 

1 


7 
11 
8 


8 

13 

- 5 


1 
7 
2 


11 
11 
2 


22 
15 

48 


5 
45 
15 


Average for area 






7.8 


- 3 


5 


4 


3 


14 


9 


5 


3 


8 


28 


22 


Miscellaneous: 

Volusia silt loam. 


5.8 
7.1 




4 

- 4 






14 

6 

- 9 


47 

24 

— 6 


46 

30 

— fi 


62 

27 

- 6 


21 

9 

30 


76 
4/ 


52 
10 
9 




Miami clay loam, Ger- 
man town 






22 


Miami clay loam. 
Strongs ville 


- 5 


12 




NEW YOEK. 

Tompkins County: 

Dunkirk clay loam 

Dunkirk clay loam 

Average for type 










9.0 
4.5 




-IS 


9 

4 


13 
55 


- 1 

- 6 


6 

27 


23 

47 


11 
42 


-14 
29 


12 


68 
33 


- 5 
54 








6.8 - 9 


7 


34 


- 3 


17 


35 


27 


8 




51 


25 






Dunkirk loam 


8.4 
9.6 


- 4 
4 


2 

1 


15 

1 


- 1 

- 4 


16 
- 8 


20 


12 
11 


- 7 



11 

7 


46 
.36 





Miami stony loam 


26 


Average for area 


7.9 


- 5 


4 


21 


- 3 


10 ! 24 

1 


19 


2 


10 


46 


19 


Bingham ton area: 

Dunkirk gravelly 
sandv loam 


6.6 
10.6 
10.6 


4 

9 

- 1 


1 
9 
11 


11 
1 
5 


4 

- 8 

16 


20 

12 


16 
9 
22 


1 

7 

26 


26 

- 3 

10 


27 

-11 

15 


29 
20 
31 


69 


Dunkirk gravelly loam 
Wabash loam 


- 9 

10 






Average for area 


9.3 


4 


7 


6 


4 


11 


16 


11 


11 


10 


27 


23 


Other localities in State: 

Volusia silt loam 

Volusia silt loam 

Volusia silt loam 

Dunkirk clay loam 

Dunkirk clay loam 


5.4 
4.8 
6.6 
1 8.9 
10.2 


2 

- 2 

4 

16 

11 


15 
15 
22 
29 
11 


13 
34 
10 
20 
18 


11 
15 
11 
31 
- 5 


8 

21 

4 

10 

- 6 


38 
53 
19 

'I 


20 
35 
23 
28 
5 


9 

15 
8 
19 

8 


32 
62 
15 
22 



51 

81 
77 
17 
17 


29 

■■"i3 

28 
21 



ARRANGEMENT AND TABULATION OF RESULTS, 



17 



Table III. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued. 





Weight 

of 
plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Gain or loss attributable to — 


Soil typo and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


PENNSYLVANIA. 

Montgomery County: 

Hagerstown loam 

Penn silt loam 

Lansdale silt loam 

Chester loam. . . . 


Grams. 
10.3 
12.3 
9.9 

7.8 


P.ct. 
13 
8 




P.ct. 
- 2 

12 
23 
9 


P.ct. 
1 
8 
1 
4 


P.ct. 
11 
11 
27 
21 


P.ct. 
13 
11 

- 7 
18 


P.ct. 
6 

24 
31 
15 


P. ft. 
9 
13 

7 
27 


P.ct. 

6 

- 8 

19 

4 


P.ct. 

23 

4 

17 

33 


P.ct. 
20 
24 
9 
13 


P. cl. 

29 

36 

30 

8 




Average for area 


10.1 


5 


10 


4 


18 


9 


19 


14 1 5 


19 


17 


24 


RHODE ISLAND. 

The State: 

Miami silt loam, King- 
ston 


3.6 


- 8 


-19 


-14 


28 


22 


22 


31 


133 


111 


39 








Miami stony loam, 
Middlcton 


7.8 
5.8 
6.7 
0.1 
15.4 
5.6 














18 
24 

7 

10 
5 
4 


9 
60 

5 
10 


21 


41 

94 
4'! 
17 
8 
35 


i 


Miami stony loam, 
Jamestown 










1 




Miami stony loam, 
Curtis Corners 












1 


Miami stony loam, 
Woonsoeket 














Miami stony loam. 
Little Compton 














Miami stony loam, 
Ashaway 












1 
















Average for typo 


8.4 










1 


11 


18 


40 


t 


















Gloucester stony loam, 
East (ireonwich 


8.7 
8.5 












" 15 
4 
3 
2 

-22 


2 

9 



25 

8 


37 
21 

14 
30 






Gloucester stony loam, 
Chepachet 
















Gloucester stony loam, 
Tarkiln 


11.4 

8.5 
















Gloucester stony loam, 
Foster 
















Gloucester stony loam, 
Greene 


7.2' 










! 




















Average for type . . 


8.9 










1 





9 


20 


















Alton stony loam, 
Hope ValleV 


5.5 
4.7 










1 

1 


34 

51 


38 

- 2 


54 
51 


1 


Alton stony loam, 
Wickford 












i 












Average for type . . 


5.1 








43 


18 


53 


1 






' 






Warwick sandy loam, 
Alton 


7.1 

7. 2 




1 




41 
23 


- 8 
28 


42 

42 




Warwick sandy loam, 
Harrington 








1 






1" ■ 






Average for type.. 


7.2 




1 I 


1 


32 


10 


42 








1 


1 






Average for area . . 


7.9 






1 






15 


14 


35 


1 






1 , 






VIRGINIA. 

Louisa County: 

Cecil sandy loam 

Cecil loam 


7.2 
4.6 


24 5 
36 47 


13 
75 


31 
26 


13 
75 


27 
100 


30 
102 


5 
71 


39 
153 


25 
63 


57 
158 




Average for area 


.5.9 


30 1 26 


44 1 28 


44 


64 


66 


38 


96 


44 1 


108 


Hanover Couhty : 

Wickham sandy loam. 
Norfolk sandy loam . . . 


7.5 
7.5 


-3 5 

3 : 11 


11 i -1 10 
20 10 17 


10 
35 


36 
30 


9 
- 1 


35 
47 


31 

44 


-12 

- 8 


Average for area .... 


7.5 


I 8 


16 8 


14 


26 


33 


4 


41 


3S 


10 



18 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES, 



Table III. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued. 





Weight 

plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Gain or loss attributable to— 


Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N.' 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


VIRGINIA— continued. 
Appomattox County: 


Gram.i. 
12.9 

11.7 

13.2 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 

6 

- 3 
4 


P.ct. 
-13 

- 2 

3 


P.ct. 
4 


P.ct. 
12 


P.ct. 
2 

9 

6 


P.ct. 

- 1 

- 6 
5 


P. ct. 
2 

7 

- 4 


P.ct. 

- 3 

_ 2 

2 


P. ct. 
24 


Cecil clay, Pocahontas 
field 

Cecil clay, Mitchell 
field 


— 3 


4 


7 
6 










NORTH CAROLINA. 

New Hanover County: ■ 


4.1 
6.4 

7.3 
3.0 


37 
3 

3 
13 


41 
9 

3 
30 


122 
37 

22 

77 


61 
20 

3 
40 


124 
45 

20 

87 


131 
51 

33 
117 


151 
63 

29 
110 


66 
16 

8 
70 


l.-)4 
70 

31 
173 


241 
94 

57 
130 


144 


-lorfolk fine sand 

Norfolk fine sandy 
loam . 


37 
34 


Portsmouth fine sand . 


230 


Average for area 


5.2 


14 


21 


65 


31 


69 


83 


88 


40 


107 


131 


111 


Miscellaneous: 

Cecil clay (good), 
Statesville. 


8.8 
8.8 
4.5 
. 4.1 
.'•,.2 
4.8 
3.0 
12.4 
4.5 
4.8 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 




- 1 

m 

20 

44 

25 

- 6 

11 
4 

42 

2 

- 4 
9 


- 2 
1 

34 
31 
21 
42 

22 

- 2 
15 

44 

26 

19 



11 


- 4 



42 

30 

16 

63 

42 
29 
18 

20 

42 

14 

32 

28 


99 

29 

19 

33 

29 

-14 

16 

31 

35 

16 

19 

20 


9 

- 6 

97 

23 

9 

52 

51 
24 
26 

20 

43 

23 

19 

17 


14 

7 

35 

39 

28 

71 

59 
40 
11 

51 

38 

62 

21 

22 


- 4 

5 

105 

49 

34 

56 

63 
19 
25 

24 

56 

62 

42 

30 


5 
6 

45 

52 

- 1 

1 
10 
31 

43 

20 

19 

4 

11 




9 

-14 

90 

53 

33 

66 

38 

8 

61 

01 

41 

46 

28 




Cecil clay (poor) , 
Statesville 




3 


Cecil clay, Iredell test 
farm. 


105 
103 

28 

70 
53 
26 

22 

46 

57 

51 

16 




Cecil sandy loam, 
Raleigh 

Iredell clay loam, 
Statesville 


54 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam, Edgecombe . . . 

Norfolk fine sandy 
loam, TarV)oro 

Porters clay, Asheville. 

Porters clay, Biltmore. 

Porters sandy loam, 
Blantyre 


78 
15 
24 

31 


Portsmouth s a n d, 
Pinehurst 


45 


Portsmouth silt loam, 
Chowan County 

Silt loam, U li i o n 
County 


74 


Tobacco soil. Wake 
County 










SOUTH CAROLINA. 

York County:- 

Cecil sand 


3.9 
7.0 

7.7 


-15 
40 



- 8 
3 
6 


26 
28 
19 


28 
- 9 

1 


8 

6 


20 
40 
16 


54 
34 
18 


S 
33 
3 


71 
41 
17 


90 
76 
51 


00 


Cecil sandy loam 

Iredell clay loam 


58 
19 


Average for area 


6.2 


8 





24 


7 


5 


25 


35 


15 


43 


72 


46 


Cherokee County : 
Cecil clay 


7.4 
6.6 
5.9 
6.9 
9.1 


- 4 
2 

- 3 

-12 

- 3 


- 6 
1 

7 

28 

7 


36 
52 
46 
35 
32 


- 2 
9 

- 1 
9 

1 


26 
47 
46 
33 
27 


39 
52 
46 
60 
46 


35 
48 
52 
58 
27 


4 
39 
29 

4 

14 


44 
56 
68 

42 


42 
81 
88 
71 
36 


12 


Cecil silt loam . . . 


74 


Cecil fine sandy loam. . 

Cecil sandy loam 

Iredell clay loam 


123 
5 

7 


Average for area 


7.2 


- 4 


7 


40 


3 


36 


49 


44 


18 


55 


64 


44 


Lancaster County: 
Cecil silt loam 


7.3 

11.8 
5.3 






75 

15 
13 


15 

5 
9 


63 

16 
35 


61 

14 
26 


67 

26 
30 


8 

19 
40 


73 

28 
105 


10 

25 
44 


111 


Miscellaneous: 

Orangeburg sandy 

loam, St. Matthews. . 

Portsmouth sandy 

loam, Darlington 





-2 


17 
138 



ARRANGEMENT AND TABULATION OF RESULTS. 



19 



Table III. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued . 





Weight 

of 
plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 








Gain or loss attributable to— 






Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK 


PN. 


KN 


PKN. 


1 
L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


TENNESSEE. 

Henderson County: 

Lexington silt loam... 

KENTUrKY. 

McCracken County : 

Memphis silt loam 


Grams. 
7.5 

5.0 


P.ct 
1 

- 3 


P.ct 

1 

3 


P.ct 
36 

39 


P.ct 
5 

8 


P.ct 
16 

25 


P.ct 
44 

42 


P. ct. 
36 

42 


P.ct 
5 

18 


P.ct. 

57 

48 


P.ct 

72 

70 


P.ct. 
17 

j - 2 


r,E(>RGi.\. 

Wayeross area: 

Norfolk sand, 12 miles 

west Wayeross 

Norfolk sand, 4J miles 

SE. Wayeross 

Norfolk sa'nd, 3J miles 

NW. Waltertown ... 


5. (i 
6.1 


- 9 

- 4 
•- 2 


24 

30 

- 5 


45 
61 
36 


27 
18 
5 


49' a5 
45 . .50 

22 j 41 


72 
57 
24 


! 64 
20 
34 


109 
121 
55 


124 
114 

77 


118 
132 
65 


Average for ty^e 


5.7 


- 5 


16 


47 


17 


39 1 52 


51 39 


95 


105 


105 


Norfolk fine sand, 3 
miles W. Wayeross. . 

Norfolk fine sand, S 
miles SE. Wayeross . 

Norfolk fine sand, 2 
miles W. Wayeross.. 


(;. 1 
(i.O 
7.4 


7 

5 

- 9 


15 

8 

- 8 


55 

53 

- 3 


23 

- 2 

- 6 


49 

18 

-12 


69 
38 



74 34 
50 1 27 
14 6 


84 
32 
25 


102 
113 
28 


107 
107 
36 


Average for type . . 


G.5 


1 


5 


35 


5 


18 


36 


46 


22 


47 


81 


83 


Norfolk Sandy loam, 
2i miles N. way- 
cross 


/.O 

(i.5 
5.0 


- 7 

11 



14 

15 
16 


36 

54 
20 


14 

15 
3 


37 

77 
15 


54 

102 
42 


64 

85 
25 




35 
-9 


57 

100 
43 


103 

109 
54 


94 

109 
42 


Norfolk sandy loam, 
3 miles N W . Vv ay- 
cross 


Norfolk sandy loam, 
2J miles SW. Elsie 


Average for type.. 


G.2 


1 


15 


37 


11 


43 


66 


58 


9 


67 


89 


82 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam, b\ miles W. 
Wayeross 


7.5 
7.9 
3.9 


17 

1 

11 


28 

5 

29 


60 
29 

74 


23 

6 

35 


63 
21 
51 


83 
38 
79 


73 
24 
80 


40 
22 
64 


89 
35 
105 


113 

96 
150 


113 

67 
176 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam, 3 miles E. 
Wayeross 


Norfolk fine sandv 
loam, 4 miles N. 
Manor 




Average for type.. 


6.4 


10 


21 


54 


21 


45 


67 


61 


42 


76 


120 


119 


Portsmouth fine sand. 
5i miles SE. Way- 
cross 


5.2 
5.2 
5.5 


6 
1 
2 


21 
15 
18 


73 
50 
33 


31 
26 
24 


92 
75 
33 


104 
80 
29 


77 
90 
71 


29 
92 
20 


117 
153 
75 


150 
219 

64 


148 
175 
109 


Portsmouth iinesand, 
1 mile S. Needham 

Portsmouth fine sand, 
1 mile S. Glemnore . . . 


Average for type. . 


5.3 


3 


18 


52 


27 


67 


71 


79 


47 


115 


144 


144 


Average for area... 


6.0 


2 


15 


45 


16 


42 


59 


59 


32 


80 


108 


107 


FLORIDA. ; 

Kscambia County: 

Portsmouth sand 


8.3 


2 


5 


12 


5 


18 


11 


11 


48 


48 


47 : 


35 


Norfolk sand 


5.4 
5.9 
7.2 


16 
5 
4 


18 
32 
19 


13 
45 
33 


11 
15 
9 


11 
20 
16 


13 
84 
41 


11 
46 
22 


46 
24 
29 


74 
55 
23 


83 
94 
66 


107 
97 
65 


Norfolk sand 

Norfolk sand 


Average for type... 


6.2 


8 


23 


30 


12 


16 


46 


26 


33 


51 


81 


90 



20 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table III. — Pcrcenkuje inarase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued . 







Weight 

plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Gain or loss attributable to— 


Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


FLORIDA — continued. 

Escambia County— Cont'd. 
Norfolk fine sandy 


Grams. 
8.4 

5.5 


P.ct. 

- 7 

10 


P.ct. 

14 

12 
36 


P.ct. 

15 

-5 
27 


P.ct. 

8 

32 
33 


P.ct. 
-12 

39 

48 


P.ct. 
-4 

30 

12 


P. ct. 

11 

32 

48 


P.ct. 

35 

45 
136 


P.ct. 
14 

82 

130 


P.ct. 
32 

32 

90 


P.ct. 
51 


Norfolk fine sandy 


85 


Norfolk fine sandy 


3.3 24 


136 






Average for type . . 


5.7 1 9 


21 


12 


24 


26 


13 


30 


72 


75 


51 


91 


Average for area . . 


6.3 


8 


19 


20 


16 


20 


27 


26 


52 


61 


63 


82 


ALABAMA. 

Lee County: 


8.6 
5.6 


1 
-11 


9 

- 7 


14 
29 


- 2 
-11 


8 
13 


31 
11 


15 
43 


10 
13 


28 
52 


"4.3' 


58 














Average for type. 


7.1 


- 5 


1 21 


- 7 


10 


21 


29 


12 


40 


! 






6.8 
4.7 


9 
- 1 


10 40 
- 1 30 


-I 


63 
21 


77 
40 


62 
35 


57 
50 


103 
135 


107 1 160 


Norfolk sand . 




108 j 143 








-Vverage for type . 


5.8 


4 


4 


35 





42 


58 


48 


53 


119 


108 i 151 


Norfolk sandy loam 
Norfolk sandy loam 


6.1 
7.7 


-14 
12 


4 
19 


42 
55 


15 
20 


37 
50 


43 1 46 
53 j 63 


11 
19 


64 

87 


42 ! 104 
61 j 164 


Average for type . 


6.9 


- 1 


12 


48 


18 


43 


48 54 


15 


75 


52 134 


Norfolk coarse sand 
Norfolk coarse sand 


5.3 

6.4 


- 7 
-12 


15 



48 
20 


-i 


34 
3 


49 
13 


50 

25 


5 
22 


70 
23 


69 
33 


101 
41 


Average for type . 


5.8 


- 9 


7 


34 


3 


18 


31 i 37 


13 


46 


46 1 71 


Average for area . 


, 6.4 


- 3 


6 


35 


3 


28 


40 i 42 


23 


70 


65 1 110 


Miscellaneous: 

Clarksville clay loam, 


11.5 






6 
25 
17 
42 

4 
25 


-4 
17 

6 
37 

5 
19 


- 4 
13 
40 
45 
9 
59 


3 19 - 1 


10 


-15 -13 


Clarksville silt loam. 


!1. 5 






17 ' 20 

19 19 

34 ' 67 

2 12 

28 j 69 


4 
16 
20 
21 
12 


1 
15 - 3 i 30 


Orangeburg clay, 

Kings farm 

Orangebmg clay. 

Ford's farm "... 

Orangeburg sandy 

loam, Rawl'sfarm... 
Orangeburg sandy 

loam, Marion 


10.3 
9.1 

S. 1 
4.8 


3 

22 
6 
14 


6 

24 

- 5 

7- 


35 32 

55 49 
17 ' 17 

69 1 37 


26 
35 
20 
60 








MISSISSIPPI. 

Pontotoc County: 


6.4 
5.4 
6.6 

7.6 


8 

41 

- 9 

17 


8 
44 
3 

- 9: 


28 
52 
18 

28 
13 


6 

32 



2 
6 


22 
39 
14 

10 
23 


14 
44 

27 

21 
25 


28 
50 
45 

26 
14 


6 
63 

6 
9 


31 9 

56 1 37 

47 1 18 

39 25 

18 1 29 


48 


Lufkin silt loam. 


78 




32 


Orangeljurg sandy 
loam 


24 




8. ! — 4 !- 6 


39 










Average for area 


6.8 10 


9 


28 


9 


22 


26 


32 


16 


38 


24 


44 


Montgomery County: 
Orange iJin-g f" i n e 


7.5 24 
8.5 7 


20 
17 


43 
29 


13 

27 


53 

17 


53 


48 


24 
24 


64 


60 


60 




26 ' 22 


16 30 


48 































ARRANGEMENT AND TABULATION OF RESULTS. 



21 



Table III. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to the various fertilizer applica- 
tions — Continued . 





Weight 

plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Gain or loss attributable to — 


Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN 


PKN. 


i;. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


MISSISSIPPI— continued. 

Montgomery Co.— Cont'd. 

Memphis silt loam 

Memphis silt loam 

Memphis silt loam 

Memphis silt loam 

Memphis silt loam 

Memphis silt loam 


Orams. 
10. 6 
9.5 
8.6 
10.2 
11.2 
7.0 


P.ct. 

1 -13 

' -10 

-13 

- 3 

-10 

7 


P.ct 

- 3 

- 9 
6 

- 2 

- 7 
9 


P.ct 

- 2 



12 
-15 
-11 

14 


P.ct. 
-16 

- 8 
3 

- 6 
-10 

4 


P.ct 


10 

5 

-13 

14 


P.ct 

7 
8 

14 
9 
5 

12 


P. ct. 

1 

13 
12 
8 
14 


p.ct 

-1 

-5 

6 

1 



13 


; p. ct. 

■ 16 

1 3 

20 
-3 

17 


P.ct. 
-4 
-5 

6 
18 

5 
36 


P.ct. 

6 
11 
34 
28 

9 
40 


Average for type 


9.5 


- 7 


- 2 


- 2 


- 6 





11 


7 


3 


11 


9 


21 


Average for area . . . 


9.3 


- 1 


3 


8 





9 


18 


14 


8 


18 


18 


30 


LOUISIANA. 

Caddo Parish: 

Caddo fine sandy loam. 
Cadrto fine sandy loam. 
Caddo fine sandy loam. 
Caddo fine sandy loam. 


4.4 
5.0 
8.8 
6.0 


18 

-10 

- 7 

6 


18 
4 
5 

17 


86 

33 

7 

26 


25 

- 4 

- 8 

- 4 


16 

2 

15 

20 


84 
62 
2 
12 


36 
4 
9 

8 


18 
8 
8 

19 


52 
72 
14 
16 


20 
44 

6 
79 


186 
148 
41 
23 


Average for type... 


6.0 


2 


11 


38 


2 13 


40 


14 


13 


39 


37 


100 


Miller fine sand 

Miller fine sand 


5.8 
7.3 


12 
21 


12 
26 


38 
10 


3 

21 


24 21 
38 17 


19 

1 


22 
14 


34 
16 


81 
43 


48 
36 


Average for type 


6.6 


17 


19 


24 


12 31 1 19 


10 


18 


25 


62 


42 


Norlollc fine sand 

Norfollv fine sand 

Norfolk fine sand 


3.7 
5.4 
5.3 


- 3 
21 
15 


51 
19 
21 


62 
41 
32 


65 
5 
36 


54 65 
61 62 
32 61 


51 
56 
59 


41 
39 
9 


113 
80 

74 


146 
92 
28 


195 
98 
80 


Average for type 


4.8 


11 


30 


45 


35 j 49 63 


55 


30 


89 


89 


124 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam 


8.7 
9.6 
5.6 
7.9 


4 9 

- 8 9 

- 3 20 
1 - 5 


7 

13 

35 

-10 


9 

-19 

19 

3 


17 

8 

76 

16 

lb „ 


21 
13 
44 

AA 


9 

-1 
33 
35 


t 
1 30 


9 
22 
54 

18 


25 
1 

52 
47 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam 


28 
2 


54 
56 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam 






Average for type 


8.0 


- 1 8 


11 


3 


29 31 1 19 


9 


40 


26 


31 


Orangel)urg fine sand . . 
Orangeliurg fine sand. 


7.4 
5.0 


8 
-22 


10 
-10 


21 
-10 


8 
-10 


15 
20 


28 
14 


21 
28 


20 
12 


28 
50 


15 
114 


28 
124 


Average for type 


6.2 


- 7 


6 


- 1 


18 21 


25 


16 


39 


115 76 


Orangeburg fine sandy 
loam 


6.5 
5.0 


3 3 

6 





ft 


10 7 
20 30 


15 
32 


7 



15 
44 


20 26 
34 96 


Orangeburg fine sandy 
loam 


10 22 




Average for type 


5.7 


2| 5 


5 11 


15 19 


24 


4 


30 


27 61 


Average for area 


6.3 


3 1 


13 


24 1 10 26 35 


24 


15 1 45 


54 j 74 


ARKANSAS. 

Prairie County: 

Calhoun clay 


8 3 


12 


12 


14 


12 16 16 


26 


IS 


27 


4 13 








Crowley silt loam 

Crowley silt loam 

Crowley silt loam 

Crowley silt loam 


7.1 
10.1 
7.0 
8.1 


- 8 1 

- 1 3 
10 
9 14 


9 

43 
2 


9 i 
-6-5 

- 6 22 

- 3 j 7 


-2 
-2 
26 
13 


7 

3 

27 




36 
2 
43 
46 


60 
5 
71 
33 


19 

7 
64 
18 


38 

9 

80 

42 


Average for type 


8.1 


7 


14 


- 1 6 


9 


9 


32 


42 


27 1 42 



22 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table III.— Percenia^e increase in growth attributable in the 'various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued . 





Weight 

plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 








Gain or I 


ass attributable to — 






Soil type and locality. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


L. 


PKNL. 


M. 


CvL. 


ARKANSAS— continued. 
Prairie County— Cont'd. 


Grams. 

8.8 
10.8 
11.1 


P.ct. 

- 9 

4 

5 


P.ct. 

8 

- 3 

13 


P.ct. 
1 
2 

- 3 


P.ct. 
2 

- 7 
4 


P.ct. 
U 
2 
3 


P.ct. 
6 
6 
9 


P.ct. 


I,! 


P.ct. 

6 

'2 

- 7 


P.ct. 

- 7 
4 

- 1 


P.ct. 
6 
4 
5 


P.ct. 
22 


Morse clay 


9 




4 






Average for type 


10.2 





6 








5 


7 


- 5 





- 1 


5 


12 


Acadia silt loam 

Acadia silt loam 

Acadia silt loam 

Acadia silt loam 


11.2 
7.3 
7.4 
9.0 






4 

7 

20 

11 


29 

10 

29 

6 


11 
12 
31 
11 


25 
1 

18 
31 


24 
10 
22 
26 


27 
15 
41 

18 


12 

14 

23 

-11 


33 
37 
48 
41 


46 

7 

31 

32 


27 
16 
38 
21 


Average for type 


8.7 


6 


11 


19 


16 


19 


21 


25 


10 


40 


29 


26 


Waverly silt loam 

Waverly silt loam .... 
Waverly silt loam 


6.5 
7.8 
5.0 


15 

- 7 

28 


20 

9 

20 


27 

- 7 

18 


27 

- 3 

23 


15 

- 4 

22 


31 

4 

29 


38 

- 3 

28 


61 
37 
104 


55 
40 
150 


38 
18 
10 


54 
41 
132 


Average for type . . . 


6.4 


12 


16 


13 


16 


11 


21 


21 


67 


82 


22 


76 


Average for area . . 


8.3 


5 


10 


12 


8 


11. 


15 


14 


26 


40 


21 


36 


TEXAS. 

San Marcos area: 

Blanco loam ..... 


8.7' 


17 


21 


19. 


21 


23 


10 


33 


20 


21 


28 








Crawford silt clay . . . 
Crawford silt clay. . . 
Crawford silt clay. . . 


9.2 
9.2 

8.8 


20 

- 7 

13 


21 
2 
25 


31 

19 
30 


20 
- 1 

18 


40 

8 

29 


29 
19 
30 


22 
23 
42 


20 

4 

24 


42 
31 
46 


40 
14 
56 


52 
34 
11 


Average for type . . . 


9.1 


9 


16 


27 


12 


26 


26 


29 


16 


40 


37 


32 


Houston black clay. . . 
Houston black clay ... 
Houston black clay. . 
Houston black clay. . 


7.9 
8.9 
7..0 
8.1 


8 



20 

- 4 


8 

4 

21 

- 5 


21 
15 
31 
21 


8 
17 
25 

5 


23 

4 

33 

12 


9 

9 

35 

21 


30 
17 
35 
19 


15 
5 

17 
6 


21 
23 
42 
26 


30 

8 

10 

25 


42 
23 
38 
32 


Average for type . . . 


8.0 


6 


7 


22 


14 


18 


19 


25 


11 


28 


18 


34 


Average for area 


8.5 


8 


12 


23 


14 


22 


20 


28 


14 


32 


26 


34 


Rusk County: 

Caddo fine sandy loam 
Caddo fine sandy loam 


8.2 
8.1 


6 
12 


2 
11 


53 
40 


5 
15 


51 
43 


53 
35 


47 
34 


7 
17 


47 
36 


61 
62 


57 
40 


Average for type . . . 


8.2 


9 


7 


47 


10 


47 


44 


40 


12 


42 


62 


49 


Norfolk fine sand 

Norfolk fine sand 

Norfolk line sand 


8.5 
7.8 
8.6 


14 

- 4 

5 


16 

1 


41 
21 
19 


16 

6 

- 3 


29 
17 
21 


54 
28 
36 


49 
28 
36 


21 
3 
10 


55 
60 
26 


86 
103 
61 


48 
69 
37 


Average for type 


8.3 


5 


10 


27 


, 6 


22 


39 


38 


11 


47 


83 


^ 51 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam . . 


7.5 
6.1 


20 
31 


28 
31 


38 

48 


41 

48 


42 

52 


62 

56 


65 

48 


21 
40 


64 
41 


105 

48 


62 


Norfolk fine sandy 
loam 


80 


Average for type 


fi.8 


26 


30 


43 


45 


47 


59 


57 


31 


53 


76 


71 


Orangeburg fine sandy 
loam 


9.2 

9.2 
7.5 

7.0 


-12 



- 7 

- 3 


- 6 

2 
20 




14 

34 
31 

9 


- 9 

- 1 
24 

- 3 


- 6 

26 
27 

3 


14 

26 
39 

3 


36 

26 
40 

9 


13 

12 

8 

-11 


39 

37 
60 

26 


68 

37 
80 

29 


53 


Orangeburg fine sandy 


66 


Orangeburg fine sand . . 

Susquehanna fine 

sandy loam 


68 
36 






Average for area 


8.0 


6 


11 


32 


13 


28 


37 


38 


13 


45 


67 


54 



AREANGEMENT- AND TABULATION OF RESULTS. 



23 



Tablk III. — Percentage increase in (jroivth attributable to the various fertilizer appli- 
cations — Continued. 



Soil typo and loc-tility. 



TEXAS — continued. 

Miscellaneous: 

Galveston clay, 

Galveston 

Houston black clay 

loam, San Antonio.. 
Orangeburg clay, 

Maroney's farm 

Orangel>urg fine sandy 

loam, Crockett 

Orangeburg fine sandy 

loam, Palestine 

Orangel.)urgfine sandy 

loam, Nagadoches . . . 
Orangeburg fme sandy 

loam, Palestine 



Miscellaneous: 

Wisconsin drift (good) 
Wisconsin drift (poorj 

lowan drift 

Missouri loess 

South lowan loess 

Kansan till 



ILLINOIS. 



Marion silt loam. 
Red silt loam 



NEW JERSEY. 

Miscellaneous: 

Norfolk sandy loam. 

Woodbine 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam, Woodbine 



CONNECTICUT. 

Connecticut Valley area: 
Hartford sandy loam. . 

MARYLAND. 

Miscellaneous: 

Leonardtown loam 

(good) 

Leonardtown loam 

(poor) 



Muck, peat, and swamp 
soils: 

Illinois 

Iowa 

Wisconsin, Portage 

County 

Indiana, Newton 

County . 

Virginia, Portsmouth . 

Average for type 



Weight 

of 
plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 



Gain or loss attributable to- 



Grums. 
11.2 

.'■).8 

8.6 

8.3 

y.s 
s.s 

11.4 



9.6 
7. 7 
9.0 
11.6 
.5.4 
5.9 



6.0 
6.5 



8.3 
6.5 



9.4 
15.0 



4.4 
3.2 



P. ct. 
-14 



S 
- 3 



P.ct. 
-12 



-25 
53 



PN. 



KN. 



P.c/. P.ct. P.ct 
3 -23 - 9 



14 

- 3 

17 



30 - 7 

31 I 10 
11 



-13 
30 
25 



- 3 

19 



-11 - 4 

17 



14 
- 4 



P.ct 
4 

35 

7 

67 

31 

43 

14 



39 



PKN. L. 



P.cl. P.ct 
-20 '- 2 



- 8 :-i3 

22 16 



46 i 10 
22 I 1 



100 
69 



7 
-14 



23 



P. ct. 

- 8 



- 4 
38 



29 



M. 



P.ct. 
4 

19 

29 

19 

-14 

56 

37 



CvL. 



P.ct. 
31 

— 7 

5 

58 

40 

15 

43 



47 [ 

86 '...... 

69 I 

5 

-17 47 

24 



-12 
45 



58 



39 



28220— BulL 48—08- 



24 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SALTS USED SEPARATELY AND IN 

COMBINATION. 

Table IV, which follows, is primarily for the purpose of showing 
the wide variation in the aggregate effect of the three fertilizer in- 
gredients when used separately as compared with their efficiency 
when used together. This table gives the percentage increase or 
decrease in growth (the latter indicated by the minus sign) produced 
by acid phosphate, sulphate of potash, and nitrate of soda used 
separately; the aggregate increase attributable to these three 
ingredients; the increase when the three ingredients were combined 
and the difference between the aggregate and that observed when 
the same ingredients were used in combination. All soils having 
complete data for these observations are included, the total number 
being 190, and the data are arranged in a descending series, beginning 
with the greatest difference in favor of the sum of the ingredients, 
until the difference becomes zero, after which the series is ascending 
and the differences are in favor of the combination. A wide varia- 
tion is shown in the last column, the difference ranging from a max- 
imum of 165 per cent in favor of the sum of the ingredients to zero 
and then increasing to a maximum of 72 per cent at the other extreme 
in favor of the combination. 

Of the total number of comparisons (190) there are 71 soils in 
wliich the efficiency of the combination exceeded the aggregate of 
the separate ingredients, 117 soils in which the aggregate of the 
individual effects exceeds that of the combination, and 2 soils in 
which the aggregate effect of the single ingredients exactly equals 
the increase in growth when those ingredients were used in com- 
bination. The number of soils that show very wide differences in 
respect to the aggregate efficiency of the ingredients as compared 
with the effect when the same ingredients are combined is small, the 
number increasing greatly as the lesser differences are approached. 
For example, 60 soils show differences of 9 per cent or less, while 
for 115 soils the difference is within the limit of 19 per cent. Within 
this limit of 19 per cent there are 51 soils in which the difl'erence is 
in favor of the combination and 62 in which it is in favor of the 
aggregate increase for the same ingredients used separately. (See 
Table V following.) As a result of averages within these limits, acid 
phosphate gives an increase of 0.64 per cent, sulphate of potash 6.68 
per cent, and nitrate of soda 19 per cent, or a total of 26.82 per cent, 
as compared witli 24.5 per cent as a mean effect of the same ingre- 
dients used in combination on the same soils. Within these limits, 
which includes 60 per cent of the soils, the average efficiency of the 
ingredients as measured by the growth of the plants is nearly the 
same whether used separately or in combination. It therefore ap- 



COMPAKATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SALTS. 25 

pears that each ingredient has performed sj)ecial functions wliich 
differ from and are independent of those performed by the others, 
whether the ingredients are appHed separately or in combination. 

Of the soils in which the effect of the ingredients in combination 
differs from the aggregate effect of the same ingredients used sepa- 
rately by 20 per cent or more, 55 are in favor of the ingredients used 
separately and 20 in favor of their combination. Within the former 
group of soils there are 15 instances in wliich the aggregate increase 
of the ingredients when used separately is more than three times as 
great as when the same ingredients were used in combination, and 12 
instances where the aggregate is less than three times but more than 
two times as great as when used in combination. Within this group, 
therefore, the function of the several ingredients is to a considerable 
degree identical, at least so far as they effect an increase in the growth 
of plants, and one may be substituted for another to a considerable 
extent. 

Of the soils in which the efficiency of the combination exceeds that 
of the same ingredients used separately by 20 per cent or more there 
are only 20. / In tliis group the function of each ingredient is not only 
different from that of the others, but each is depentlent upon the 
presence of others in order that it may have the greatest effect. 

There is no apparent relation either by soil type or locality with this 
grouping of the soils; neither do the soils of one group appear to be 
particularly more responsive to the complete fertilizer than those of 
another. Of 190 observations on each, the individual ingredients 
give negative results as follows: Acid prosphate 66 times, sulphate of 
potash 31 times, and nitrate of soda 22 times. The combination of 
all three ingredients gives a negative result only 9 times, wliile the 
aggregate effect of the individual ingredients becomes negative 21 
times. 

Table V shows the average increase produced by each ingredient, 
the aggregate increase, and the actual increase when the ingredients 
were combined for soils in which the aggregate increase from indi- 
vidual ingredients differs witliin certain limits from that obtained 
when the same ingredients were combined. 

There are ten soils in which each of the three ingredients when used 
separately gave a greater increase in growth than when all were com- 
bined and ten others in which two of the three each equaled or 
exceeded the gain produced by the three combined. (See Tables VI 
and VII.) These soils are not confined to particular localities or 
types, neither are they associated with high or low degree of natural 
fertility, as may be seen by the wide range in weight of plants on the 
untreated soils. 



26 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MA] 

Table IV. — Percentage increase in growth attributable to 1\ K, ai 
the same, as compared with the observed increase when a mixture 
was applied. 

[Results arranged in ilcsccniiiiig series, beginning with the grciilcst Hetiml 

sum of the ingredients.] 

1 Weight Increase { 



±1 EC i EU a \ iVi AJN U KKS. 

ibiitable to 1\ K, and N, and the sum of 
rase when a mixture of the three fertilizers 



dillerencc In fiivoruf the 



Stale. 



Virginia 

North Carolina. 



Mississippi. 
Louisiana.. 



Louisiana.. - 
North Carolina. 

Virginia 

Louisiana 

North Carolina 
Missouri 



Iowa 

Texas 

North Carolina. 

North Carolina 



Locality. 



Portsmouth . 
Edgecombe.. 



Pontotoc County, 
Caddo Parish 



Rusk County. 



Caddo Parish 

Jredcll test farm 
Louisa County . . 
Caddo Parish".... 

Pinehurst 

Crawford County 



Soil. 



Ames 

San Marcos 

New II a n o ve r 

County. 
Blantyre 



Illinois Manito 

Louisiana Caddo Parish . 

Louisiana Caddo Parish . 



Wisconsin.. 
Indiana. . . 

Mississippi. 

Florida . . . . 



Arkansas . 
Texas 



South Carolina. 

New York 

Florida 

Florida 

New York 

Florida 

Georgia 



North Carolina. 
Mississippi 



Arkansas . 
Indiana. . 



Georgia . 
Texas . . . 



Newton County . . 
Montgomery 

County. 
EscambiaCounty. 

Prairie County . . . 
San Marcos area . . 

York County 



Peat 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Lufkin silt loam.. . 
Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sand . . 

Cecil clay 

Cecil loam 

Miller fine sand 

Portsmouth sand.. 
Clarksville slit 

loam. 

Peat 

Crawford silt clay. . 
Norfolk sand ...... 



Geneseo 

EscamliiaCounty. 
EscaniliiaCdiint y. 
Genesee County... 
EscamltiaCouiity. 
Waycross area . . . 

Raleigh 

Montgomery 

County. 
Prairie County . . . 
Newton County . . 

Waycross area ... 
Rusk County 



Georgia 

North Carolina. 



Waycross area . 
Tarboro 



Texas \ San Marcos area. 

Arkansas Prairie County... 

Arkansas Prairie County... 

Louisiana Caddo Parish 

Arkansas Prairie County... 

Iowa Ames 



Porter's sand y 

loam. 

Muck 

Miller fine sand . . . . 
Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 

Muck 

Marshall loam 

Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Vv'averly silt loam. 
Houston black 

clay. 
Cecil sandy loam . . 
Dunkirk clay loam 

Norfolk sand 

Norfolk sand 

Dunkirk clay loam 

Norfolk sand 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Cecil sandy loam.. 
Lintonia loam 



Weight 

of 
plants 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 



Arkansas \ Prairie County . . 

Texas San Marcos 

Maryland Leonardtown 



Georgia Waycross area 

Alabama -Lee County 

Louisiana Caddo Parish.. 



Acadia silt loam. . 
Marshall fi n e 

sandy loam. 

Norfolk sand 

Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Crawford silt clay. . 
Crowley silt loam.. 

Morse clay 

Norfolk fine sand.. 
Crowley silt loam.. 
Wisconsin drift 

(poor). 
Waverly silt loam. 

Blanco loam 

Leonardtown loam 

(good). 
Portsmouth fine 

sand. 
Norfolk sandy 

loam. 
Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 



Grams. 
3.2 

4.8 

5.4 

4,4 

0.1 



Increase at- ijj. ' 
tributable to— Sum please j j... 
p«^ attrib- Y'l 



P.Ct. P.Ct. P.Ct. 
53 112 

'44 42 i 63 



31 



3.7 i- 3 

4.5 86 

4.6 36 
7.3 21 

4.8 I 42 
6. 6 26 



1.5.0 
9.2 
4.1 

4.5 

9.4 

5.8 
6.0 

7.2 
7.6 
7.5 



5.0 
7.0 

7.0 
8.9 
5.9 
5.4 
10.2 
7.2 
7.5 

4.1 

8.5 

7.4 
6.3 

5.6 
8.1 

3.9 

5.3 



7.0 
11.1 
5.4 
8.1 

7.7 

0.5 
8.7 
8.3 

5.2 

7.7 
5.0 



^- N, 



P.Ct. 

234 
149 

137 
122 



110 
162 
158 

57 
110 

58 

71 

72 

200 



"to'' !«"««• 

'KN. I . 



53 
15 
81 
25 
106 

62 
57 
70 

ino 

86 
27 



P.Ct. 



51 

105 

102 

1 

56 

^1 
20 i 
22 I 
151 



i P. ct. 

I 165 
i 93 



69 


25 


62 


19 


49 


8 


88 


47 


56 


16 


87 


48 






•87 


48 


60 


28 


72 


35 


71 


34 


65 


28 


82 


46 


47 


11 


40 


5 


56 


22 


105 


73 



41 
- 4 



COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SALTS. 



27 



Tablk IV. 



-Fercenkujt increase in growl h attributable to 
the savie, etc. — Continued. 



/'. A', and N, and the. sum of 



State. 



Texas , 

Alabama. 
Texas , 



Indiana.... 
Louisiana. 



North Carolina 
North Carolina 
Louisiana 



Ohio 

Mississippi... 

New Jersey. 



Missouri 

Pennsylvania... 



Georgia 

Wisconsin.. 
Mississippi. 
Mississippi. 



Pennsylvania. 

New Yorlc 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Texas 



New York. 

Iowa 

New York. 
Wisconsin., 

Virginia 

Arkansas.., 
New York. 



Georgia. 
Florida.. 



New York. 
Louisiana.. 



Wisconsin . 
Georgia 



North Carolina. 



North Carolina. 
Texas 



New York 

Louisiana 

South Carolina. 

Alabama 

Ohio 

, Illinois.. 

Wisconsin 

Florida 

South Carolina. 

Texas 

Alabama 

South Carolina. 
Wisconsin 



Alabama. 
Arkansas. 



Locality. 



Rusk County. 
Ford's farm... 
Rusk County. 



Tippecanoe 

County. 
Caddo Parish 



Biltmoro fann. 
Wake County.. 
Caddo Parish.. 



Soil. 



Westerville area. . 
Pontotoc County. 



Woodliine. 



Scotland County. 
Montgomery 

County. 

Waycross 

Portage County... 
Pontotoc County 
Montgomery 

County. 
M o n t g o m e r y 

County. 
B i n g h a m t o u 

area. 
Caddo Parish 



Rusk County. 
Nagadoches... 



Portage County.. 
Louisa County".. . 

Prairie County 

Binghamton areji. 

Waycross area 

Escambia County 

Tompkins County 
Caddo Parish 



Portage County.. 
Waycross area 

N c \v Hanover 
County. 

Statesville 

Rusk Countv 



Caddo Parish 

Cherokee County. 

Lee County 

Strongsville 

Pulaski 

Portage County . . 
Eseambi^ County. 
Cherokee County . 

San Marcos .". . 

Kin.g's farm 

York County 

Portage County . . 



Lee County , 

Prairie County ... 



Norfolk fine sand. 
Orangeburg clay... 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Miami silt loam 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 

Porters clay 

Toliacco soil 

Orangeburg fine 

sand. 
Miami clay loam.. . 
Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk sandy 

loam. 

Shelby silt loam 

Lansdale silt loam. 

Norfolk fine sand. 

Miami sand 

Lufkin clay 

Memphis silt loam. 

Penn silt loam 

Dunkirk gravelly 

sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Volusia silt loam. . 

lowan drift 

Volusia silt loam.. 

Marshall sand 

Cecil sandy loam. . . 

Calhoun clay 

Dunkirk gravelly 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Dunkirk clay loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Miami sandy loam 
Norfolk sandy 

loam. 
Portsmouth fine 

sand. 
Iredell clay loam. . . 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Volusia silt loam.. 
Norfolk fine sand, . 
Iredell clay loam.. 
Cecil sandy loam... 
Miami clay loam... 

Red silt loam 

Miami stony sand . 
Portsmouth sand.. 

Cecil silt loam 

Houston blackclay 
Orangeburg claj^ . . 
Iredell clay loam... 
Marshall gravelly 

loam. 
Norfolk coarse 

sand. 
Acadia silt loam... 



Weight 

of 
plants 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 



Grams. 
8.5 
9.1 

7.5 

5.6 



12.4 

4.7 
7.4 

6.1 
7.6 



9.6 
9.9 

6.0 
6.0 
6.4 
7.0 

12.3 

6.6 

9.6 

8.2 



6.6 
9.0 
4.8 
8.4 
7.2 
8.3 
10.6 

7.9 

8.4 

9.0 

8.7 

9.0 
6.0 

3.0 

5.2 

9.2 

5.4 
5.3 
9.1 

ae 



7.0 
9.9 
8.3 
6.6 
7.9 

10.3 
7.7 

11.0 



11.2 



Increase at- 


tributable to— 


P. 


K. 


N. 


P.ct.'p.ct. 


P.ct. 


14 


16 


41 


22 


24 


42 


20 


28 


38 


30 


21 


28 


- 3 ' 20 


35 


11 15 


18 


9 1 11 


28 


8 10 


21 


11 5 


15 


17-2 


28 


12 


5 


20 


7 


24 


14 





23 


1 


5 


8 


53 


7 


15 


33 


8 


8 


28 


/ 


9 


14 


8 


12 


8 


4 


1 


11 


- 8 


9 


13 


6 


2 


53 


1 


(■) 


31 


4 


22 


10 


16 


25 


28 


- 2 


15 


34 


7 


9 


31 


24 


5 


13 


12 


12 


14 


9 


9 


1 


1 


5 


29 


- 7 


14 


15 





9 


13 


4 


9 


7 


4 


8 


2 





16 


20 


13 


30 


77 


7 


21 


16 





2 


34 


9 


15 


13 


ir, 


21 


32 


- 3 


7 


32 


1 


9 


14 


- 4 


- 5 


12 


3 


8 


19 





13 


11 


2 


5 


12 


2 


1 


52 


8 


8 


21 


3 


6 


17 





6 


19 


- 1 


- 2 


14 


- 7 


15 


48 





4 


29 



Sum 

of 
P,K, 
and 

N. 



P.ct. 
71 



In- 
crease 
attrib- 
utable 

to 
PKN. 



P.ct. 
49 
67 
65 

58 

33 

25 
30 
21 

13 
26 

20 

28 

50 
39 
28 
14 

13 

1 

- 1 

47 

24 

23 
57 
35 
35 
30 
26 
7 

24 

U 

11 
9 

3 
25 

110 

34 
20 



Dif- 
fer- 
ence. 



P.ct. 
22 
21 
21 

21 

19 

19 
18 
18 

18 

17 



20 


10 


59 


9 


27 


9 


l.'-i 


9 


- (i 


9 


22 


8 


22 


8 


11 


8 


48 


7 


30 


7 


19 


7 


18 


7 


4 


7 


50 


6 


27 


6 



28 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table IV. — Percentage increase in growth attribntable to F, K, and N, and the sum of 

the same, etc. — Continued. 



State. 



Locality. 



Soil. 



Weight 

of 
plants 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 



Increase at- gu^i 
tributable to— | of 
P,K, 
and 
P. K. N. N. 



In- 
crease 
attrib- 
utable 

to 
PKN. 



Arkansas 

Georgia 

Texas 


Prairie County ... 
Waycross area. .. 
Rusk County 

Hanover County.. 

Waycross area 

Prairie County . . . 
Montgomery 

County. 
Henderson 

County. 
Asheville 


Virginia 

Georgia 

Arkansas 

Pennsylvania... 

Tennessee 

North Carolina 
Texas 


Missouri 

Texas 


Crawford County. 


New York 

Indiana 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Indiana 

.\rkansas 

North Carolina. 

New York 

Ohio 


Tompkins County 
Tippecanoe 

County. 
Prairie County . . . 
Prairie County . . . 
T ippecan"oe 

County. 
Prairie County. . . 
New Hanover 

County. 
Tompkins County 


Arkansas 

South Carolina. 

North Carolina. 
Texas . 


Prairie County . 
Cherokee County.. 

States ville 

Galveston 


Texas 


Rusk Countv 


Texas 

Kentucky 

Alabama 


Rusk County 

McCracken 

County. 
Lee County 


Louisiana 

Texas... 

North Carolina. 
New York .... 

Georgia 

Arkansas 

Maryland 

Texas 

Alabama 

Texas. . 


Caddo Parish 

San Antonio 

States ville 

Tompkins 

County. 
Waycross 

Prairie County . . 
Leonardtown! 

Rusk County 

Rawles's farm 

San Marcos area 


Alabama 

South Carolina. 
Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Texas. . 


Lee County 

Cherokee County . 
Montgomery 

County. 
Caddo Parish 

San Marcos area. . 


South Carolina. 

Virginia 

Mississippi 

New York 

Missouri 

Georgia 

South Carolina. 

Texas 


Cherokee County. 
Pocahontas field . . 
Pontotoc County. 
Binghamtonare i. 
Crawford County. 


St. Matthews 

Palestine 



Morse clay 

Norfolk sand 

Orangeburg fine 

sand. 
Norfolk sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sand. . 
Acadia silt loam.. . 
Hagerstown loam. 

Lexington silt 

loam. 

Porters clay 

Houston black clay 
Clarksville stony 

loam. 
Orangeburg clay . . 

Dunkirk loam 

Marshall loam 

Morse clay 

Crowley silt loam . . 
Marshall silt loam. 

Acadia silt loam.. . 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Dunkirk clay loam 

Miami loam 

Waverly silt loam. 
Cecil fine sandy 

loam. 
Cecil clay (good) . . 

Galveston clay 

Susquehanna fine 

sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sand. . 
Memphis silt loam. 

Norfolk sand 

Kansan till 

Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Houston black clay 

loam. 
Cecil clay (poor). .. 
Miami stony loam . 

Norfolk sandy 

loam. 
Crowley silt loam . . 
Leonard town loam 

(poor). 
Norfolk fine sand . . 
Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 
Houston black clay 

Norfolk sand 

Cecil sandy loam. . . 
Memphis silt loam. 

Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Crawford silt clay. 

Cecil clay 

Cecil clay 

Monroe silt loam. . . 

Wabash loam 

Wabash silt loam. . 

Norfolk sand 

Orangeljurg sandy 

loam. 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 



Grams. P.ct. 
10.8 4 
6.1-2 

7.5-7 



7.5 

6.1 
7.3 
10.3 



5.8 
8.9 
14.0 

8.6 
8.4 
7.5 



10.1 
7.2 

9.0 
7.3 

4.5 
8.6 
7.8 
5.9 

8.8 
11.2 
7.0 



6.8 
5.9 



8.8 
9.6 



7.1 
6.5 

8.6 
8.1 

8.1 
4.7 
6.9 
8.6 

6.5 

9.2 
7.4 

11.7 
8.0 

10.6 
7.6 
5.5 

11.8 

11.4 



P.ct 

- 3 

- 5 
20 

11 

15 

7 

-2 



P.ct. I P.ct. 



0-2 

-14 1-12 
-3 

- 4 ! 8 
-3 3 



- 8 

- 7 15 

5 6 

6 !- 5 

- 4 ;- 5 
-11-1 
-12 28 
-13 ' 6 



41 

- 7 

- 5 
50 

- 6 
-23 

6 

25 
39 

59 
70 
5 



14 

26 

- 2 

' 3 

15 

-13 

60 

13 





P.ct. 

- 3 
24 
40 

30 

74 
15 



36 



21 


19 


19 


17 


5 


3 


15 


14 


13 


12 


6 


6 








2 


3 


11 


12 


17 


18 


28 


29 



- 3 

52 



- 4 
-20 



COMPAKATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SALTS. 



29 



Table IV. — Pcrcentaye increase in growth attributable to P, K, and N, and the sum of 

the same, etc. — Continued. 



Pennsylvania. . 

North Carolina. 
Alabama 



North Carolina. 

Ohio 

Florida 



Illinois 

Louisiana. 



Montgomery 

County. 
Union County. . . 
Lee County 



New Hanover 

County. 
Westerville area. . 

Escambia County 



Caddo Parish. 



Wisconsin. 
Alabama. . 



Portage County. 
1,( e County 



Iowa 

Georgia 

Mississippi. 



Indiana 

Mississippi. 



New Jersey 

Georgia 

Virginia 

Alabama 

Georgia j... 

North Carolina. 



Wisconsin.. 
Mississippi. 



Waycross 

Montgomery 

County. 
Newton County . . 
Mont gome ry 

County. 
Woodbine 



Alabama. . . 
Mississippi. 

Georgia 

Mississippi. 



Texas 

Louisiana. 



Waycross 

Hanover County . . 

Marion 

Waycross 

Chowan County.. 

Portage County. . 
M o n t go me r y 

County. 

Lee County 

Pontotoc County. 

Waycross 

Montgomery 

County. 
Rusk County 



Chester loam. 



Caddo Parish. 



Indiana 

South Carolina. 
Louisiana 



Newton County 
York County. .. 
Caddo Parish. .. 



Rhode Island.. Kingston. 



Silt loam 

Norfolk sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sand . . 

Miami black clay 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Marion silt loam. . . 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Portage silt loam. . 
Norfolk c Q a r s e 

sand. 
Wisconsin drift 

(good ) . 
Portsmouth fine 

sand. 
Memphis silt loam. 

Clyde fine sand 

Memphis silt loam. 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk sandy 

!oani. 
Wickham sandy 

loam. 
Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 
Portsmouth fine 

sand. 
Portsmouth silt 

loam. 
Portage silt loam. . 
Memphis silt loam. 

Cecil sandy loam. . . 
Orangeburg clay. . . 
Norfolk fine sand. . 
Memphis silt loam. 

Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 

Muck 

Cecil sand 

Orangeburg fine 

sand. 
Miami silt loam 



Weight Increase at- 

of . tributable to— 

plants I 

on an- ; 

treated I 

soil. 



Grams. 

7.8 

4.6 
6.1 

6.4 

8.3 

5.5 

7.7 
5.0 

8.7 
6.4 

9.6 

5.5 

10.6 

12.6 
9.5 

6.5 

7.0 

7.5 

4.8 

5.2 

4.5 

10.0 
10.2 

5.6 
6.6 
7.4 
11.2 

9.2 

7.9 

4.4 
3.9 
5.0 



P.ct. 


- 4 
-14 

3 

-11 

10 

-13 




-16 


15 

18 

- 3 

- 2 

- 9 

1 

14 
5 

15 
19 

- 9 

- 2 

-11 - 7 
- 9 3 
1-9-8 

-10 - 7 

-12 - 6 

'. 1-5 

-25 Gl 
-15 - 8 
-22 -10 



10 

2 

-13 



-21 

-16 



- 3 
14 
1 

-11 
- 3 



K. 



3.6 - 8 -19 



N. 



P.ct. 
4 

32 

42 

37 

- 2 

- 5 

- 3 
10 

- 2 
20 

30 

33 

- 2 

-14 


9 

36 

11 

25 

50 

14 

- 6 
-15 

29 
18 

- 3 
-11 

14 

-10 

14 

26 

-10 



S;^ crea'se 
■p% 'attrib- 
and' "table 

N- I PKN. 



P.ct. 
13 

28 
32 

49 

- 7 

17 

-24 
16 

-16 
8 

35 

53 

-18 

-37 
-25 

11 

43 

13 

46 

66 

35 

-26 
-20 

11 

12 

-20 

-28 

- 4 

-14 

50 

3 

-42 



P.ct. 

27 



32 

1 
25 

52 

71 

1 

-17 
- 5 

32 

64 

36 

69 

90 

62 

3 

12 

43 
45 

14 
8 

36 

35 

100 

54 

28 



Dif- 
fer- 
ence. 



P.ct. 

14 

14 
14 

14 

15 

15 

16 
16 

17 
17 

17 

18 

19 

20 
20 

21 

21 

23 

23 

24 

27 

29 
32 

32 
33 
34 
36 

40 

49 

50 
51 
70 



80 



FERTTLTTY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table V. — Average percentage increase in growth attributable to P, K, and N and the 
aggregate increase of the same salts used individually as compared with the actual increase 
when the same salts were used together, averages being for the soils in ivhich the difference 
between the aggregate and actual increase is within limits indicated in the first column. 



Range of 
differ- 
ence. 


Number 
of soils. 


Green 

weight 

of plants. 


Increase attributable to— 


Sum of 
P, K, 

and N. 


Increase 
attribu- 
table to 
mixture 
of PKN. 


Differ- 
ence. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


Per cent. 

60+ 

50-59 

40-49 

30-39 

20-29 

10-19 

0-9 

9-0 

19-10 

29-20 

39-30 

49-40 

50+ 


5 
8 
7 

16 
19 
35 
28 
.32 
20 
9 
5 
2 
4 


Grams. 
4.8 
7.0 
6.4 
6.7 
7.3 
7.6 
8.3 
7.6 
7.9 
7.5 
8.2 
8.6 
4.2 


Per cent. 
37 
31 
19 
16 
13 
6 
1 

:! 

- 8 

- 6 
-18 


Per cent. 

49 

31 

30 

22 

19 

12 

5 

4 

4 

4 

-5 

-5 

6 


Per cent. 
64 
38 
35 
31 
38 
22 
22 
17 
14 
14 
4 
2 
4 


Per cent. 
150 
100 
84 
69 
70 
40 
28 
19 
13 
14 
-9 
-9 
-8 


Per cent. 
52 

46 
41 
31 
46 
20 
23 
23 
28 
37 
24 
36 
53 


Per cent. 

98 

54 

43 

35 

24 

14 

5 

- 4 

-15 

-23 

■ -33 

-45 

-61 



Table VI. — Ten. soils in which percentage increase attributable to each ingredient is- 
greater than that produced when all are combined. 



State. 


Locality. 


Soil type. 


Weight 
of plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Increase 

attributable 
to— 


Sum 

of 
PKN. 


In- 
crease 
attrib- 
utable 
to mix- 
ture of 
PKN. 


Dif- 
fer- 
ence. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


Louisiana 


Caddo Parish 


MiUer fine sand . . . 
Peat 


Grams. 
7.3 
15.0 
6.6 

7.6 
5.4 
10.2 

6.3 

11.1 
8.1 
6.6 


P.ct. 
21 
24 
26 

17 
16 
11 

5 

5 
9 
4 


P.ct. 

26 
26 
15 

22 
18 
11 

12 

13 


P.ct. 
10 

21 
17 

17 
13 

18 

9 

-.3 
2 
11 


P.ct. 
57 
71 
58 

56 
47 
40 

26 

15 
25 
16 


P.ct. 

1 

20 


P.ct. 
56 
51 


Missouri 

Indiana 

Florida 


Crawford County. 

Newton County . . 
Escambia County. 
Geneseo 

Newton County . . 

Prairie County ... 
Prairie County . . . 
Binghamton area. 


Clarksville silt 

loam. 

Marshall loam 

Norfolk sand 

Dunkirk clay 

loam. 
Marshall fine 
sandy loam. 

Morse clay 

Crowley silt loam. 
Dunkirk gravelly 
sandy loam. 


7 1 51 

16 i 40 
11 36 


New York 

Indiana 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

New York 


5 

- 4 

-11 


1 


35 

30 

26 

• 25 

15 




Average 


8.4 


14 


16 


11 


41 


5 36 











NITRATE OF SODA ALONE AND WITH OTHER SALTS, 



31 



Table VII. 



Tni sails in luhich two of the three ingredients each produced a greater 
increase than when all three were combined. 




NITRATE OF SODA ALONE AND WITH OTHER SALTS. 



A study of Table IV shows that in 66 per cent of the instances 
nitrate of soda when used ah)ne has produced an increase of growth 
which equals or exceeds that produced by either sulphate of potash 
or acid phosphate. 

A tabulation of the data for nitrate of soda and of combinations 
v^ which it enters shows that the nitrate of soda has a marked bene- 
ficial effect on the majority of soils which on an average is not 
increased by the addition of acid phosphate. A comparison of the 
nitrate with the nitrate-phosphate column shows a difference in 
favor of the former in slightly more than half of the comparisons. 
The average of these two columns shows a difference of less than one- 
tenth of 1 per cent. 

Nitrate of soda when supplemented with sulphate of potash gives 
an increase in growth which in 74 per cent of the instances equals or 
exceeds that produced by nitrate of soda alone, the average result 
being 8.5 per cent in favor of the combination. When this nitrogen- 
potash combination is still further supplemented by acid phosphate 
there is on an average no additional increase in growth. In fact tlie 
instances in which the nitrogen-potash combination equals or exceeds 
that of the complete fertilizer are slightly in the majority. The 
tabulation above mentioned is not published, but the same facts 
may be gathered by careful study of those columns in Table III, 
which give the results for nitrogen and all combinations into which 
'it enters. 



32 FEETILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

SULPHATE OF POTASH ALONE AND WITH OTHER SALTS. 

Sulphate of potash when supplemented by acid phosphate pro- 
duced an increase in growth, which in 50 per cent of the soils exceeded 
that produced by potash alone, the average increase being one- 
tenth of 1 per cent in favor of the combination. When the potash 
salt is combined with nitrate of soda there is a marked increase in 
growth over that produced by potash alone, which, on the average, 
is not further increased by the addition of acid phosphate. In 86 
per cent of the soils the effect of potash combined with nitrogen has 
equaled or exceeded the effect of potash alone. These facts are 
brought out by a study of the columns in Table III, in which potash 
occurs, omitting all soils for which the data for this salt and all its 
combinations f),re incomplete. 

ACID PHOSPHATE ALONE AND WITH OTHER SALTS. 

Referring to Table IV, the striking fact is the large number of 
instances in which acid phosphate gives a small or negative effect. 
The efficiency is quite regularly increased (see all columns of Table 
III in which ])hosphate enters) as each fertilizer salt is added, the 
exceptions to this being mostly for those soils in which the efficiency of 
the complete fertilizer as a whole becomes quite small or is negative. 

In the life and economy of the plant, phosphates are generally 
recognized to be instrumental chiefly in the production of seed or 
fruit, and have a tendency to hasten maturity, and may influence 
the color and quahty of the fruit. It is also known that plants do 
not absorb extraneous phosphates during the very early stages of 
growth. From the standpoint of the requirements of the plant, no 
response would be expected from the phosphates, and it is, there- 
fore, not strange that in many instances a small or negative effect 
has resulted from their application. It should be borne in mind, 
however, that this is not a study of the plant's requirements, but a 
study of the fertihty of the soil as affected by fertiUzers and that the 
plants have been used merely as the indicator of the degree to which 
fertihty has been affected by the various applications. It is now 
contended that aside from the direct action that various salts have 
on the growth and economy of the plant, they may also act directly 
on the soil, thereby increasing its fertility in a way not fully under- 
stood. 

An inspection of the tables will show that while small and negative 
effects have often resulted from the phosphate, there are 55 soils in 
which the increase in growth attributable to this salt when used 
alone has ranged from 10 to 50 per cent and in two instances even^ 
more. 



LIME ALONE AND WITH FERTILIZER S\LTS. 33 

LIME ALONE AND WITH FERTILIZER SALTS. 

Table VIII shows the increase in growth attributable to lime, to a 
complete fertilizer with and mthout lime, to manure, and to cowpea 
vines with lime. The soils are arranged in a descending series as 
determined by the efficiency of the complete fertilizer without lime. 
Lime alone shows quite a marked effect in the majority of the soils, 
and while its efficiency corresponds in a general way with that of a 
complete fertilizer there are numerous exceptions to this. The hme 
may have little or no effect where the fertilizer is markedly beneficial. 
For example, in the upper portion of the table where the figures for 
the complete fertilizer range from 50 to 75 per cent increase in growth 
there are 8 soils on which lime gives less than 10 per cent increase, 
while in the lower portion of the table where the complete fertilizer 
does not exceed 1 1 per cent there are 7 instances where the increase 
in growth attributable to lime exceeds 30 per cent. As a rule, the 
efficiency of the complete fertilizer has been appreciably increased by 
the addition of lime. There seems to be little evidence in support of 
the contention sometimes made that the benefits due to lime are 
attributable to its favorable action on nitrification. 

A study of Table IX, which summarizes the results of Table VIII 
and all data for the same soils in Table III — i. e., gives the mean per- 
centage increase in growth attributable to the several fertilizer 
salts and combinations for groups of soils in which the efficiency of 
a complete fertilizer falls within certain limits as given in the second 
column — shows that as the efficiency of a complete fertilizer declines 
there is a corresponding decline in the effect of practically all ingre- 
dients and combinations. This is equally as true for manure or for 
potash and phosphate as it is for nitrate of soda and lime, so that 
the parallel decline in the lime and nitrate columns in the table loses 
significance. Of the soils in Table VIII, where the efficiency of a com- 
plete fertilizer is not less than 25 nor more than 75 per cent, there are 
17 in which the efficiency of lime exceeds 35 per cent and 31 in which 
it is 10 per cent or less. As a result of aVerages of these two groups 
of soils, we get the following results: Seventeen soils (lime giving 
increase of 35 per cent or more) average efficiency, lime 63, N 35, 
NKP 49; 31 soils (lime giving increase of 10 per cent or less) lime 4, 
N 24, NKP 40. The effect 6i nitrogen is obtained from Table III. 

The difference in the efficiency of lime is here very marked, drop- 
ping from an average of 63 per cent for the 17 soils to only 4 per cent 
for the 31 soils. The relative decline in the effect of nitrate of soda 
and the complete fertilizer, however, is small, being from 35 to 24 for 
the former and 49 to 40 for the latter. 



34 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table VIII. — Weight of plants on the untreated soil and the percentage incrcme ingrotvth 
produced by lime, a complete fertilizer with lime, a complete fertilizer, mavvre, and cow- 
pea vines with lime. 



Looality. 



Soil. 



Weight 

of 
plants, 

un- 
treated 

soil. 



Increase attributable to — 



NPKL. 



NPK. M. 



CvL. 



North Carolina. 

North Carolina. 

North Carolina. 

Virginia 

Indiana , . . . 



Georgia., 

Georgia. 

Georgia. 
Iowa 



New Hanover 

County. 
New Hanover 

County. 
Iredell test farm... 

Louisa County 

Newton County. . 

Waycross area.. . 

Waycross area 

Waycross area... 
Ames 



Georgia , Waycross area... 



Georgia. 
Georgia. 



Iowa 

Georgia. 
Georgia. 



Waycross area. 
Waycross area. 



Leon 

Waycross area. 
Waycross area. 



Virginia. . 
Alabama., 
Texas 



Georgia 

North Carolina. . 

North Carolina. 

Alabama 

North Carolina. . 



Marion . 



Portsmouth.. 

Marion 

Rusk County. 



Waycross area 

New Hanover 

County.. 
Tarboro , 



Lee County 

Chowan County. 



Alabama Lee County. 



Louisiana., 
Indiana. . . 



South Carolina. 

Georgia 

Iowa 



Nortli Carolina. . 

North Carohna. .| 

Louisiana 

South Carolina...' 
South Carolina... 



Caddo Parish 

Tippecanoe 

County. 
Cherokee County. 
Waycross area..". 
Blackhawk 

County. 
Edgecombe 



Pinehurst 

Caddo Parish 

York County. — 
Cherokee County. 



Iowa Ames. 



Louisiana... 
Alabama... 
Mississippi. 
Georgia 



North Carolina. 
Texas 

South Carolina.. 



Florida 

Mississippi. 

Texas 

Texas 

Wisconsin. 



Caddo Parish. . 

Lee County 

Pontotoc area . 
Waycross area. 



Raleigh 

Rusk County 

Cherokee County.. 



Escambia County 

Montgomery 

County. 
Rusk County 



Norfolk sand. 



Portsmouth 
fine sand. 

Cecil clay , 

Cecil loam 

Peat , 



Rusk County 

Portage County . . 



Portsmouth fine 

sand. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk sandy loam 
Wisconsin drift 

(poor). 

Portsmouth fine 

sand. 

Norfolk fine sand 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 

Kansan till 

Norfolk sand 

Portsmouth fine 

sand. 

Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 

Peat '. 

Orangeburg clay . . . 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sand... . 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk sandy loam. 
Portsmouth silt 

loam. 
Norfolk sand 



Norfolk fine sand 
Miami silt loam.. 



Cecil sandy loam. 

Norfolk sand 

lowan drift 



Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Portsmouth sand. . 
Norfolk fine sand . . . 

Cecil sand 

Cecil fine sandy 

loam. 
Wisconsin drift 

(good). 
Norfolk fine sand . . 
Norfolk coarse sand, 

lyufkin silt loam 

Norfolk fine sand . . 

Cecil sandy loam 

Ndrf oik fine sand . . 
Cecil silt loam 



Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Muck 



Grams. 
4.1 

3.0 

4.5 
46 
4.4 

5.2 

3.9 

6.5 

7.7 



G. L 
7.5 

5.9 
5.5 
5.5 



3.2 
9.1 
7.5 

7.0 

6.4 

3.0 

7.7 
4.5 



5.3 
5.6 

6.9 
5.6 
9.0 



4.8 
5.4 
3.9 
5.9 



3.7 
5.3 
5.4 
6.0 

4.1 
8.5 
6.6 

3.3 

7.5 

6.1 

8.2 

7.2 



P.ct. 
66 

70 

45 
71 
14 

92 

64 

35 

17 

29 

34 
40 

6 
64 
20 



26 

39 

8 

29 

- 5 

41 

5 

63 

27 

52 
21 
39 

136 

24 

40 

7 

23 



P.ct. 
154 

173 

105 
153 
70 

153 

105 

100 



84 
89 

42 
109 
75 



69 

97 

55 
64 

57 
70 

70 

87 
57 

103 

74 
35 

65 
121 



113 
70 
56 
32 

103 
55 

56 

130 
64 
41 
47 
41 



P.ct. 
151 

110 

105 
102 
100 

90 

86 

85 
82 



P. ct. P. ct. 
254 { 144 



63 



219 
150 

109 

86 

150 

102 
113 

24 
124 
64 

37 

47 

49 

105 

103 
94 

38 

61 
46 



71 
114 



146 
59 
37 

113 

53 
86 
81 

90 

60 

48 

61 

51 



LIME ALONE AND WITH FERTILIZER SALTS, 



35 



Table VIII. — Wright of plants on the untreated soil and the percentaije increase in 
groivth produced by lime, etc. — Continued. 



State. 



Locality. 



Florida 

.Mabama. . 
Mississippi 
.Mabama. . . 
New York. 



North Carolina. 
Kentucky ...... 



Texas 

Arkansas. 
Texas 



Wisconsin. 
.\rkansas.. 
Virginia. .. 



Tennessee. 
Louisiana. 



Texas. 
Texas. 



Escambia County 

Lee County 

Pontotoc Coimty. 

L<^e County 

Tompkins Coun- 
ty. 

Union County. .. . 

MeCracken Coun- 
ty. 

San Marcos ar<'a. . 

Prairie County .. . 

Rusk County 



Portage County 
Prairie County .. 
Louisa County... 

Henderson Coun- 
ty. 
Caddo Parish 



Norfolk sand 

Norfolk sandy loam. 
Orangel)urg clay .. 
Cecil .sandy loam . . 
Dunkirk clay loam. 



Silt loam 

Memphis silt loam. 



Rusk County . 
Rusk County. 



Wisconsin i Portage County 

New York . . 



South Carolina .: ChercJ^ee County. 

Alabama j Lee County ..'..,. . 

Louisiana ' Caddo Parish 



Texas 

North Carolina . 
South Carolina. 
Texas 



Louisiana . 



Texas. . 
Florida. 



Louisiana. 



New Jersey 

Rhode Island... 

Virginia 

Virginia 

North Carolina. 
Texas 



North Carolina . 



Missouri.. . 
New York. 
Mississippi 
Louisiana . 



.\rkansas 

Texas 

Pennsylvania... 

South Carolina. 

.\rkansas 

Arkansas 

South Carolina . 



New York. 

Mississippi. 

Arkansas.. 
Texas 



North Carolina.. 



San Marcos area. 

Statesville 

York County 

Rusk County 



Caddo Parish. 



San Marcos area. . 
Escambia Coun- 
ty. 
Caddo Parish 



Woodbine, 



Kingston 

Louisa County 

Hanover County.. 

Wake County 

San Marcos area. . 

New Hanover 

County. 
Scotland County.. 

Geneseo 

Pontotoc area . . . . 
Caddo Parish 



Prairie County .. 

Rusk County 

Montgomery 

County. 
Cherokee County 
Prairie County . . 
Prairie County . . 
St. Matthews 



Bingham ton 

County. 
Pontotoc County. 

Prairie County . . . 
Rusk County 



Biltmore. 



Crawford silt clay . . 
Acadia silt loam" . . 
Orangeburg fine 
sand. 

Miami sand 

Waverly silt loam. 
Wickham sandy 

loam. 
Lexington silt loam. 

Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sand., 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 

Marshall sand 

Volusia silt loam. . . 

Cecil clay. 

Norfolk sand 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Houston black clay. 

Iredell clay loam 

Cecil sandy loam 

Caddo flric sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 

lilanco loam 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Orangelnirg fine 

sandy loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 

Miami silt loam 

Cecil sandy loam... 
Norfolk sandy loam 

Tobacco soil 

Houston black clay. 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 

Shelby silt loam 

Dunkirk clay loam . 

Lufkin clay 

Orangeburg fine 

sand. 
Waverly silt loam. . 
Norfolk fine sand. . . 
Chester loam 

I redeU clay loam 

Crowley silt loam..-. 

Acadia silt loam 

Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 
Wabash loam 

Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 

Calhoun clay 

Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Porters clay 



Weight 

Of 
plants, 

un- 
treated 

soil. 



Grams. 
5.9 

ti. I 



4.0 
5.0 



Increase attributable to- 



8.8 
7.4 
7. .5 



6.0 
6.5 
7.5 



8. (i 
9.2 

8.4 
4.8 
7.4 
4.7 
7.0 

7.0 
5.2 
7.0 
8.1 



3.() 
7.2 

7.5 
4.7 
7.9 



9.6 
8.9 
6.4 
5.0 

5.0 

7.8 
7.8 

9.1 

7.0 
11.2 
11.8 

10.6 

7.6 

8.3 
9.2 

12.4 I 



L. 


NPKL. 


NPK. 


M. 


CvL. 


P.ci. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


24 


55 


46 


94 


97 


11 


64 


46 


42 


104 


- ;i 


47 


45 


IS 


32 


18 


52 


43 


43 




■ 29 




42 
42 


33 

28 


54 


4 


51 




18 


48 


42 


70 


2 


24 


46 


42 


56 


11 


23 


48 


41 


31 


38 


8 


60 


40 


80 


68 


7 


43 


39 


SO 


- 4 


61 


.55 


38 


38 


54 


9 


35 


36 


31 


-12 


5 


57 


36 


72 


17 


18 


52 


36 


20 


186 


10 


26 


36 


61 


37 


13 


39 


36 


68 


53 


11 


8 


35 


34 


3 


15 


62 


35 


81 




4 


44 


35 


42 


12 


50 


135 


35 


108 


143 


2 


56 


3!> 


18 


47 


17 


42 


35 


10 


38 


- 1 


28 


34 


33 




33 


41 


34 


76 


58 


17 


36 


34 


62 


40 


28 


54 


33 


54 


. 52 


20 


21 


33 


28 


37 


45 


82 


32 


32 


85 





44 


32 


34 


96 


7 


31 


32 


28 


42 


133 


111 


31 


39 




5 


39 


30 


25 


57 


- 1 


47 


30 


44 


- 8 


11 


16 
21 


30 
30 






15 


30 


" 42 


8 


31 


29 


57 


34 


11 


28 


28 


69 


30 


19 


22 


28 


17 


28 


6 


31 


28 


9 


48 


12 


15 


28 


114 


124 


104 


150 


28 


10 


132 


3 


60 


28 


103 


69 


4 


33 


27 


13 


8 


14 


42 


27 


36 


7 


43 


71 


27 


64 


80 


12 


33 


27 


46 


27 


19 


28 


26 


25 


17 


10 


15 


26 


31 


10 


6 


39 


26 


25 


24 


18 


27 


26 


4 


13 


12 


37 


26 


37 


66 


31 


26 


25 


61 


24 



36 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



Table VIII. — Weight of plants on the untreated soil and the percentage increase in 
groivth produced by lime, etc. — ^Continued. 



State. 



Locality. 



Georgia 

Alabama 

Illinois 

North Carolina. 

Georgia 

Georgia 



Texas. 



New York. 

Texas 

Wisconsin. 

Florida 

Mississippi. 



Texas 

Illinois 

Louisiana. 



New York.. 
New Jersey. 
Iowa 



North Carohna. 

Alabama 

Louisiana 

Texas 

South Carolina. 

Arkansas 

Texas 

Indiana 

Alabama 

Louisiana 



Arkansas.. 

Georgia 

Mississippi. 

Texas 

Texas 



Mississippi. 



Ohio 

Pennsylvania. . . 

Mississippi 

Indiana 



New York . 
Alabama. . 



Mississippi. 

New York. 
New York. 

Florida 

Florida 

Florida 



Texas. 



Pennsylvania. 

Louisiana 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Ohio 

Mississippi. . . 




Wayeross area . . 

Lee County 

Manito 

Blantyre 

Wayeross area . . 
Wayeross area . . 

Nacogdoches 



San Marcos area. . 
Portage County .. 
Escamliia County 
Montgomery 

County. 
San Marcos area.. 
Pulaski County. . . 
Caddo Parish 



Ithaca 

Woodbine. 
Ames , 



Asheville 

Perry County . . . 

Caddo Parish 

San Marcos area. 

York County 

Prairie County . . 
San Marcos area. 
Newton County . 

Lee County 

Caddo Parish 



Prairie County. .. 
Wayeross area . . . 
Pontotoc County. 

Nacogdoches 

Palestine 



Montgomery 

County. 

Westville area 

Montgomery 

County. 
Montgomery 

County. 
Tip pecanoe 

County. 
Tompkins County 
Perry County 

Montgomery 

County. 
Tompkins 
Tompkins 
Escaml)ia 
Escaml)ia 
Escambia 



County 
County 
County 
County 
County 



San Antonio . 



Montgomery 

County. 
Caddo Parish 

Caddo Parish 

Rusk County 

Westerville area . . 

Montgomery 
County. 



Norfolk sandy loam 
Norfolk coarse sand 

Muck 

Porters sandy loam. 

Norfolk sand 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Volusia silt loam. . . 
Crawford silt clay .. 
Miami stony sand. . 

Norfolk sand 

Lintonia loam 

Crawford silt clay .. 

Red silt loam 

Orangeburg fine 

sand. 
Volusia silt loam. . . 
Norfolk sandy loam 
Muck 

Porters clay 

Orangeburg clay . . . 

Miller fine sand 

Houston lilack clay. 
Iredell clay loam . . . 

Acadia silt loam 

Houston l)lackclay. 

Marshall loam 

Cecil sandy loam . . . 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 

Acadia silt loam 

Norfolk fine sand. . . 
Monroe silt loam . . . 
Orangeburg clay . . . 
Orangeburg fine 

sandy loam. 
Memphis silt loam.. 

Miami clay loam 

Penn silt loam 

Memphis silt loam. . 

Marshall silt loam . . 



Dunkirk loam 

Orangeburg sandy 

loam. 
Memphis silt loam . . 



Weight 
of 

plants, 

un- 
treated 

soil. 



Dunkirk clay loam.. 
Miami stony loam.. 
Portsmouth sand . . 

Norfolk sand 

Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Houston black clay 

loam. 

Hagerstown loam . . 

Caddo fine sandy 

loam. 
Norfolk fine sandy 

loam. 
Susquehanna fine 

sandy loam. 
Miami " l)lack clay 

loam. 
Memphis silt loam. . 



Grams. 
5.0 
6.4 
9.4 
4.5 
6.1 
7.9 



6.6 
9.2 
9.9 

7.2 
8.5 

9.2 
7.0 

7.4 

5.4 
6.0 
15.0 

5.8 
10.3 
5.8 
8.1 
7.7 
9.0 
8.9 
7.6 
8.6 
6.5 

7.3 
7.4 
8.0 



6.1 
12.3 



8.4 
8.1 



9.0 
9.6 
8.3 
5.4 
8.4 



8.7 
7.0 
8.3 
11.2 



Increase attributable to — 



L. 


NPKL. 


P. ct. 


P.ct. 


- 9 


43 


22 


23 


/ 


33 


43 


22 


34 


55 


22 


35 


16 


24 


8 


15 


4 


31 


- 3 


19 


29 


23 


24 


16 


20 


42 


16 


38 


20 


28 


9 


32 


2 


17 


-14 




10 


53 


16 


35 


22 


34 


6 


26 


3 


17 


-11 


41 


5 


23 


22 


21 


10 


28 


7 


-15 


14 


37 


6 


25 


9 


18 


4 


5 


-15 


9 


13 


17 


7 


11 


- 8 


4 


6 


9 


- 7 


6 


- 7 


11 


21 


17 


1 


20 


-14 


12 





7 


48 


48 


46 


74 


35 


14 


11 


19 


6 


23 


8 


14 





30 


-U 


26 


1 


11 





-3 



NPK. M. CvL. 



P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


25 


54 


42 


25 


33 


41 


25 


45 


51 


24 


61 


31 


24 


77 


65 


24 


96 


67 


24 


56 


15 


23 


77 


13 


23 


14 


34 


22 


47 


8 


22 


66 


65 


22 


30 


48 


22 


40 


52 


22 


■ 26 


45 


21 


15 


28 


20 


51 


29 


20 


25 


14 


20 


64 




19 


9 


16 


19 


32 


26 


19 


81 


48 


19 


25 


32 


18 


51 


19 


18 


32 


21 


17 


8 


23 


16 


77 


34 


15 




58 


15 


20 


26 


15 


7 


16 


14 


28 


36 


14 


29 


39 


14 


29 


5 


14 


37 


43 


14 


36 


40 


13 


15 


45 


13 


24 


36 


13 


6 


34 


12 


-2 


4 


12 


46 





12 


17 


20 


12 


18 


28 


11 


68 


- 5 


11 


36 


26 


11 


47 


35 


11 


83 


107 


11 


32 


51 


10 


19 


- 7 


9 


20 


29 


9 


6 


41 


9 


9 


25 


9 


29 


36 


8 


22 


5 


8 


5 


9 



EFFICIENCY OF ORGANIC AND CHEMICAL MANURES. 



37 



Table VIII. — Weight of plants on the untreated soil and the percentage increase in 
growth produced by lime, etc. — Continued. 





Locality. 


Soil. 


Weight 
plants, 


Increase attributable to 


- 


State. 




1 














treated 


L. 


NPKL. 


NPK. 


M. 


CvL. 








soil. 


















Grams. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


Louisiana 


Caddo Parish 


Caddo fine saiidy 
loam. 


6.0 


19 


16 


8 


79 


23 




Crawford County. 
Montgomery 


Clarksville siP. loam 
Lansdale silt loam.. 


6.6 
9 9 


14 
. 19 


1 

17 


7 


43 
9 


32 


Pennsylvania 


30 




County. 
















New York 


Bingham ton 
area. 


Dunkirk grayelly 
loam. 


10.6 


- 3 


-11 


7 


20 


- 9 


Arkansas 


Prairie County... 


Crowley silt loam. . . 


7.1 


36' 


60 


7 


19 


38 


Indiana 


Tippecanoe 
County. 


Marshall loam 


7.5 


- 3 


7 


6 


42 


- 2 










Dunkirk cla / loam. . 
Marshall gravelly 

lo-m. 
Caddo fine sandy 


10.2 
11.0 


8 
2 



3 


5 
4 


17 
36 


21 


Wisconsin 


Portage County.. 


14 


Louisiana 


Caddo Parish 


5.0 


8 


72 


4 


44 


148 


- 




loam. 














Wisconsin 


Portage County.. 


Miami sandr loam. . 


9.0 


4 


21 


3 


29 


12 


Wisconsin 


Portage County. . 


Portage silt loam... 


10.0 


5 


10 


3 


21 


10 


Missouri 


Crawlord County. 


Clarksville stony 
loam. 


14.6 


- 3 


- 2 


3 


-10 


13 


Arkansas 


Prairie County. . . 


Crowley silt loam.. . 


10.1 


2 


5 


3 


7 


9 


Wisconsin 


Portage County. . 


Portage silt loam... 


8.7 


9 


-14 


1 


42 


-14 


New York 


Binghamton area. 


Dunl<irk gravelly 
sandy loam. 


6.6 


26 


27 


1 


29 


09 


Mississippi 


Montgomery Co.. 


Memphis silt loam.. 


in. 6 


- 1 


16 


1 


- 4 


6 


Louisiana 


Caddo Parish 


Miller fine sand 


7.3 


14 


16 


1 


43 


30 


Arkansas 


Prairie County... 


Crowley silt loam... 


8.1 


46 


33 





IS 


42 








8.8 


6 


- 7 





li 






Crawford County. 
Caddo Parish 


Wabash silt loam... 
Norfolk fine sandy 


7.6 
9.6 



6 


2 
19 


- 1 

- 1 


23 
22 


24 


Louisiana 


1 






loam. 














Arkansas 

Arkansas 


Prairie County . . . 
Prairie County ... 




10.8 


2 


4 


- 3 


4 


9 


Waverlv silt loam.. 


7.8 


37 


40 


- 3 


18 


41 


Indiana 


Newton County . . 


Marshall fine sandy 
loam. 


6.3 


-12 


- 1 


- 4 


60 


- 2 










Cecil clay (good) 

Miami loam 

Memphis silt loam.. 


8.8 


5 




- 4 


9 




Ohio 


Westerville area . . 
Montgomery 


8.6 
9.5 


2 
- 5 


2 
3 


- 5 

- 5 


48 
- 5 


15 


Mississippi 


11 




County. 
















Ohio 


Strongsville 

Clinton County. . . 






30 
-13 

- 7 




— 

- 8 
-11 


9 

48 






Ma rion silt loam 


7.7 
11.1 


- 4 

- 1 


-12 




4 




Newton County. . 
Galyeston 


Clyde fine" sand 

Gab eston c'ay 


12.6 
11.2 


-12 
- 2 


- 7 

- 8 


-17 
-20 


32 
4 


- 4 


Texas... 


31 







RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF ORGANIC AND CHEMICAL MANURES. 

An examination of Table VIII shows further the efficiency of 
manure and cowpea vines with hme as compared with a complete 
fertilizer with and without Hme. In the majority of instances the 
manure or cowpea vines with lime, or both, have proved superior 
to the mineral fertilizers. A careful analysis of the results shows that 
manure and cowpea vines with lime nearly tie for first rank, while 
the complete fertilizer with lime ranks tliird, and without hme 
becomes fourth, or last. The relative number of times that each 
treatment ranks first on the basis of 100 for the wdiole is: Manure, 
39; cowpea vines with hme, 39; complete fertilizer with lime, 16, 
and complete fertilizer alone, 6. 



38 P^ERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF ALL SALTS AND COMBINATIONS WHEN SOILS 
ARE GROUPED ACCORDING TO EFFICIENCY OF PKN. 

Table IX is an aggregation of tlie results in Table VIII and the 
results for the same soils in Table III and gives the average per- 
centage increase in growth attributable to each ingredient and com- 
bination of ingredients for groups of soils in which the efliciency of 
a combination of nitrate, potash, and phosphate was within certain 
limits as given in the second colunm of the table. It also gives the 
average green weight of plants grown on the untreated soil for each 
of the groups as well as the weight produced by a complete fertilizer 
and the weight produced by the best average treatment for each 
group which in eiglit instances is attributable to cowpea vines 
with lime and in three instances to manure. 

The efficiency of the single fertilizers, phosphate, potash, lime and 
nitrate, with a few exceptions increase in the order named, the phos- 
phate being least effective and the nitrate most effective. In the 
group of soils for which the efficiency of a complete fertilizer is 
60 to 69 per cent, potash outranks lime by 1 per cent, and in the fol- 
lowing group it becomes identical with lime. In the last two groups 
in the table lime outranks the nitrate as well as potash and phosphate. 
A comparison of the efficiency of the several combinations of fer- 
tilizer salts and lime gives the order of eiliciency that would be 
expected from a study of the relative efficiency of the same salts 
used separately. With a few exceptions, however, the efficiency of 
the various combinations is a little less than the aggregate efficiency 
of the same salts when used separately. These exceptions are 
mostly with the combination of potash and nitrate (KN), which in 
six out of eleven groups gives a larger percentage increase in growth 
than the aggregate of the same ingredients used separately. The 
efficiency order of the combinations, beginning with the smallest, 
is phosphate-potash (PK), phosphate-nitrate (PN), potash-nitrate 
(KN), phosphate-potash-nitrate (PKN), and phosphate-potash- 
nitrate-lime (PKNL). In the four lowest groups of the table, how- 
ever, the potash-nitrate (KN) combination outranks the complete 
fertilizer without lime. A comparison of the most efficient fertilizer 
treatment, viz, that of the three fertilizing salts and lime, with the 
results obtained with manure and with cowpea vines and lime shows 
only four groups in which the fertilizer with lime outranks the 
manure and no instances in which the cowpea vines with lime have 
failed to outrank the fertilizer with lime. Of the eleven groups, 
cowpea vines with lime rank first eight times and manure three times. 

In the last three columns is given the. average green weight of 
plants on the untreated soil, with a complete fertilizer, and with the 
best average treatment, for each of the eleven groups of soil. It is 



EFFICIENCY OP SALTS ALONE AND IN COMBINATION. 



39 



noticeable that as there is a regular decrease in the efficiency of the 
fertilizers there is a corresponding regular increase in the weight 
of plants produced on the untreated soil. In other words, the lower 
the producing capacity of the soils the greater their response to fer- 
tilizers. The decrease in the efficiency of a complete fertilizer with- 
out lime is nearly inversely proportional to the increase in the weight 
of plants so that the weight of plants produced by the same fertilizer 
for any group of soils approaches a constant. The same is essentially 
true for the best average treatment with a tendency toward the 
largest plants on the poorer soils, as shown by the maximum weights 
of plants for the second and third groups from the top of the table 
under heading of best treatment. 

Table IX. — Average effect of fertilizer salts and covibinations by groups according to the 
efficiency of PKN, also average iveight of plants on untreated soil, average iveight when 
treated with PKN, and average weight with best fertilizer treatment. 





Range 
of 
effi- 
ciency. 








Increase attributable to 


- 






Weight of plants. 


Num- 
ber 
of 

-soils. 


P. 


K. 


N. 


L. 


PK. 


PN. 


KN. 


PKN. 


LPKN. 


Ma- 
nure. 


Cow- 
pea 
vines 
and 


Un- 
treated 
soil. 


PKN. 


Best 
treat- 
ment. 


























lime. 












P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P. ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


P.ct. 


Gms. 


Gms. 


Gms. 


5 


100+ 


29 


43 


66 


53 


58 


75 


85 


113 


131 


115 


137 


4.1 


8.7 


9.7 


4 


80-99 


10 


23 


58 


52 


26 


63 


85 


86 


119 


141 


153 


5.8 


10.8 


14.7 


(i 


70-79 


5 


20 


53 


32 


23 


57 


72 


73 


86 


96 


119 


5.9 


10.2 


12.9 


10 


00-09 


15 


2(i 


40 


25 


27 


50 


55 


65 


73 


69 


84 


6.0 


9.9 


11.0 


15 


50-59 


11 


23 


43 


23 


20 


40 


48 


54 


68 


69 


83 


5.8 


8.9 


10. 6 


18 


40-49 


7 


15 


37 


27 


18 


32 


40 


45 


59 


57 


62 


6.3 


9.1 


10.2 


2(i 


30-36 


7 


8 


23 


20 


13 


21 


33 


34 


48 


46 


56 


6.6 


8.8 


10.3 


35 


20-29 


5 


12 


21 


17 


10 


17 


27 


25 


35 


45 


41 


8.0 


10.0 


11.9 


29 


10-19 


2 


4 


11 


9 


4 


11 


16 


14 


23 


31 


29 


8.2 


9.3 


10.7 


25 


0- 9 


1 


5 


6 


8 


2 


6 


12 


5 


15 


24 


26 


9.0 


9.5 


11.3 


>H 


-1 to 
- 20 


}-' 








2 


-7 


2 


7 




4 


21 


11 


9.3 


8.7 


11.2 



RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SALTS WHEN USED ALONE AND IN 

COMBINATION. 

In these tests as shown in Table III, beginning on page 15, each 
of the three salts, acid phosphate, sulphate of potash, and nitrate 
of soda, has been used separately and in three combinations, thus 
giving four observations relative to the increase in growth pro- 
duced by each. For lime there are two observations, while for 
manure and cowpea vines and lime there is only one observation 
each. While it is disputed ground as to whether the efficiency of a 
fertilizer salt should be measured by using it alone or by combining 
it with all other elements in which the soil may be deficient, many 
experimenters have adopted the combination as the most reliable 
means. It seems probable, however, that theoretical considerations, 
rather than observed results, have led to the adoption of such a 
system, the idea being that if the soil is deficient in two or more 



40 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

ingredients the full benefits of any one of them can not be obtained 
in the absence of a sufficiency of the others. While such reasoning 
seems logical it is not always supported by facts, as may be seen by 
a study of Table IV. Here there are only 20 soils out of 190 in 
which this seems to be noticeably true, while there is a much larger 
number, viz, 50 soils, in which the efficiency of the ingredients used 
separately is much more marked than when used in combination, 
and this in spite of the fact that all three of them produce quite 
marked results. Indeed, when we calculate the average efficiency 
of the ingredients for all soils we find that each is slightly more 
efficient when used alone than when in combination with one or 
more other ingredients. 

As an average of many field tests on various crops and in numerous 
localities the conclusion is that the efficiency of a fertilizer ingredient 
is about equally as marked whether used alone or in combination 
with one or more other ingredients. On the less productive soils the 
tendency is toward a better effect from the ingredient when in com- 
bination with other ingredients which are also beneficial. On better 
soils the tendency is in the other direction." For many individual 
soils this tendency is as marked under field conditions as it is in the 
pots. 

Numerous bulletins of the Alabama agricultural experiment station 
report the results of fertilizer tests tliat were conducted at intervals 
during the years 1889 to 1900. Of such tests 156 were cooperative 
experiments with cotton and were carried on in 53 of the 67 counties 
of the State. The fertilizer materials used per acre consisted of nitro- 
gen derived from 90 pounds of sulphate of ammonia or 96 pounds of 
nitrate of soda or 200 pounds of cotton-seed meal, potash derived 
from 150 or 200 pounds of kainit or 64 pounds of muriate of potash, 
and phosphorus derived from 195 or 200 pounds of dissolved bone- 
black or 240 pounds of acid phosphate. The three classes of fertilizer 
were used separately and the three were also combined, each ingre- 
dient entering into the combination in the same amount as when 
used alone. The results are reported in pounds of seed cotton per 
acre over and above that produced when no fertilizer was used, and 
the data for each of the three fertilizers when used alone and in com- 
bination are complete for 134 tests. The aggregate increase attrib- 
uted to the three fertilizers when used separately was 443.2 pounds of 
seed cotton per acre, as compared with an average of 444.7 pounds 
increase per acre when the same ingredients were combined. 

Table X shows the percentage increase in growth attributable to 
each ingredient when used separately, as compared with the calcu- 

" See tabulated results on corn in ' Results in Field Experiments with Various 
Fertilizers," by Prof. W. O. Atwater, Ph. D., U. S. Dept. Agr., 1883. 



EFFICIENCY OF SALTS ALONE AND IN COMBINATION. 41 

lated increase where it occurs in the several combinations. The 
results are for each of the four ingredients, lime, nitrate, potash, and 
phosphate, and are the averages for each of the 25 areas given in 
Table III. As an illustration of how the results are calculated, take 
the average results of the five soils from Cherokee County, S. C. Nitrate 
alone gave an increase of 40 per cent. Nitrate and phosphate pro- 
duced an increase of 36 per cent, or 40 per cent more than phosphate 
alone, while nitrate and potash produced 49 per cent, or 42 per cent 
more than potash alone. The average effect for nitrogen in these 
two combinations is therefore 41 per cent and is entered in the second 
column under nitrogen. As NP = 36 and NK = 49, by addition 
(2N)PK = 8o. However, PK = 3, so by difference we have 2N = 82 
or N = 41, which is entered in the third column imder nitrogen. 
NPK = 44 and since PK = 3, N in the NPK combination produced an 
increase of 41 per cent. The four values each for potash and phos- 
phate and the two values for lime are obtained in the same manner. 
For this area the efhciency of the several ingredients is very uniform, 
the range of variation for nitrate, potash, and phosphate being only 
1 per cent, while for lime the difference between the two observations 
is 7 per cent. Since the results in Table X are based upon the average 
of all soils from each area the variation in the efficiency of the ingre- 
dients as they occur in the various combinations is not marked. By 
making the same calculations for each of the soils, however, many of 
them show a marked variation in the efficiency of the ingredients as 
they occur in the several combinations, a difference far too great to 
be attributable to error of observation, which by actual test has been 
found not to exceed plus or minus 5 per cent. Where the variation 
in the efficiency of a fertilizer ingredient, as it occurs alone and in 
several combinations, exceeds the limit of error in observations as 
above stated, such portion of the variation as exceeds that limit must 
be attributable to its association witli the other ingredients. Just as 
in a solution of several salts the ])resence of one may increase or 
decrease the solubility of others, so in the soil the addition of one 
ingredient may increase or decrease the effectiveness of another. It 
has already been shown that for quite a number of soils the effect of 
three ingredients combined is no better than for one of them and that 
one ingredient may be substituted for another witli equally good 
effect. See Table VI, page 30. On the other hand, there are many 
soils in which the effect attributable to a combination of tliree ferti- 
lizer ingredients is two or three times greater than the aggregate effect 
of the same ingredients when used separately. See latter portion of 
Table IV, page 26. 

The variation in the efficiency of a fertilizer ingredient as used sep- 
arately and in several combinations bears no consistent relation to the 



42 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES, 

efficiency of the ingredients with which it is associated or to the effi- 
ciency of the combination as a whole. If nitrate of soda produces an 
increase in growth which equals or exceeds that produced when it is 
associated with potash and phosphate, as is frequently shown in 
Table IV, pa;ge 26, we would theoretically expect little or no effect from 
either potash or phosphate when used alone on the same soils. Con- 
trary to this theory, however, we find that, with an occasional excep- 
tion, both potash and phosphate are markedly efficient on these soils. 
On the other hand, if nitrate of soda produces little or no increase as 
compared with a fair to good increase obtained when it is combined 
with potash and phosphate,"^s is frequently shown in the latter por- 
tion of Table IV, we should expect to obtain fair to»good results from 
potash or phosphate when used alone on the same soils. But what do 
we find? Usually little or no effect from. potash, and a negative effect 
from the phosphate. Table V, page 30, which is a condensation of 
the results in Table IV, shows up this relationship in a striking man- 
ner. In that table is given the average percentage increase in 
growth attributable to each of three ingredients and their combination 
for groups of soils in which the aggregate effect of the ingredients dif- 
fers within certain limits from that obtained when they are used in 
combination. It will be noticed that there is a more or less regular 
and parallel decline in the efficiency of each of the ingredients when 
used separately, from a maximum of 37, 49, and 64 per cent for 
phosphate, potash, and nitrate to a minimum of — 18, — 5, and 2 for the 
same ingredients, respectively. Notwithstanding this marked de- 
cline in the efficiency of the ingredients when used separately, the 
efficiency for the three ingredients combined is essentially as marked 
at the end of the series as at the beginning, the average effect for the 
first and last groups being 52 and 53 per cent, respectively. The 
aggregate effect of the three ingredients used separately is 150 and — 8 
per cent for the same groups. (See Table V, p. 30.) 



EFFICIENCY OF SALTS ALONE AND IN COMBINATION, 



43 



Table X. Percentage increase in growth attributable to each fertUizcr salt and lime, when 
used aloiu and when used in'various combinations, as calculated by the difference method. 
Average, by areas. 



State. 



Locality. 



Indiana Newton County. . . 

Missouri Crawford County . . 

Ohio Westerville area. . . 

New York I Tompkins County . 



Wisconsin. 

New York 

Mississippi 

Pennsylvania . . . 

Indiana 

Missouri 

Virginia 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Mississippi 

South Carolina. , 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

South Carolina. , 

Alabama 

Florida 

Georgia 

Virginia 

North Carolina . 



Portage County. 

Binghamton area 

Montgomery County. . 
Montgomery County. . 
Tippecanoe Coimty... . 

Scotland County 

HanoverCounty 

San Marcos area 

Prairie County 

Pontotoc County 

York County 

Caddo Parish 

Rusk County 

Henderson County 

McCracken County 

Cherokee County 

Lcc County 

Escambia County 

Waycross area 

Louisa County 

New Hanover County. 



State. 



Locality. 



Indiana Newton County . . . 

Missouri ' Crawford County . . 

Ohio I Westerville area.. . 

New York Tompkins County . 

Wisconsin 1 Portage County. 



New York 

Mississippi 

Pennsylvania. . . 

Indiana 

Missouri 

Virginia 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Mississippi 

South Carolina. 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

South Carolina. 

Alabama 

Florida 

Georgia 

Virginia 

North Carolina . 



Binghamton area 

Montgomery County. . 

do 

Tippecanoe County 

Scotland County 

Hanover County 

San Marcos area 

Prairie County 

Pontotoc County 

York County 

Caddo Parish 

Rusk County 

Henderson County 

McCracken County 

Cherokee County." 

Lee County 

Escambia County 

Waycross area 

Louisa County 

New Hanover County. 



Increase with 
lime. 



P. cl. 
6 

- 3 
3 

- 9 
_ 2 

- 1 
4 

- 9 

8 
4 

26 

6 

8 

21 

7 

21 

6 

11 

28 

35 

21- 

30 

19 



Increase with phosphoric acid. 



P. rl. 



% 




1 

iz; 


!5| 




wl 


+ 


M 


1 


W 




Ph 


PL, 




+ 

Ph 



. ci. 
-6 

2J 

4 
-9 
-2J 

1 

-1 
«i 
94 

I 

I 

-u 

-3 

-ti 



-1 j 

-8 I 
-4i' 
-4 

lu^ 

-l' 
1 
7 



P. ct. 

- 6 
4 
4 

- 8 

- 3i 


- 4 
4 
9 
3 
2 



P. ct. 
-17 

- 4 

- 4 

- 5 
_ 2 

- 5 

- 4 

- 5 
3 

- 4 
7 
8 

- 1 
6 

10 

1 

- 8 


- 5 
2 

- 1 




Increase with potash. 



P.ct. 
7i 
1 

5i 
2i 
3 
.5 

14 
4 

KiJ 
9 
li 
3 



P.ct. 

10 

1 

-1 

() 

a 

5"; 

5 
14 


IS 
10 

(i ' 



Increase with nitrogen. 






6 
13 


9 





li 


11 


t) 


1(5 


7 


13 


8 


8 


5i 





7* 


12 


14 


Ki 


9 


24 


17^ 


22 



P.ct. 

- 1 

- 7 

- 9 
9 
8 

5 
,5 

- () 
U 
19 

5i 

10 
30 I 

- 2 i 
10 
20 

7 

8 
14 

6 
17 
22 
19 



P.ct. 
4 
4 

4 
21 
12 
6 
8 
4 
14 
14 
10 
23 
12 
28 
24 
24 
32 
36 
39 
40 
35 
20 
45 
44 
65 



P.ct. 
1§ 
2i 
lOi 
17i 
9| 
8 

12J 
6J 
17i 
9 
16 
11 
. 54 
14i 
21 
22J 
24 
29 
33i 
41' 
32i 
10' 
42 
26 
58i 



P.ct. 
5 
6 
10 
18 
lOi 
12 
13 
5 
21 
13 
16 

H 
9 
20 
12 
25 
26 
28 
30 
41 
32 
15 
42 



P. ct. 

- 6 
_ 2 

2 
22 
12 

7 
14 

— 5 
15 

6 
25 
14 

6 
23 
28 
14 
25 
31 
34 
41 
39 
10 
43 
38 
57 



44 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



RELATION OF FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS TO CHARACTER OF SOILS. 

That soils vary greatly in their crop-producing capacity and in the 
degree to wliich they respond to fertilizers under field conditions has 
long been known as a result of experience and also as a result of care- 
fully recorded field tests. This marked difference in the degree to 
which various soils respond to fertilizer treatments is the most strik- 







P K N L PK PN KN PKN PKNL M CVL 


1 50 

140 

130 

120 
it 
^ 110 

o lOO 

It 

90 

- 80 

Uj 

w 70 
^ 60 
^ 50 

S 30 

S; (0 


10 


— 


1 i i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

M 
X 

> 
* 

X 


/^v*^ ' /// ,' 

J/ \\W/ 



PORTSMOUTH FIN E SAND »*>.xxxxx 
NORFOLK FtNE SAN Or LOAM i ■ ■ ■ 

NORFOLK SAND 

NORFOLK FINE SAN D 

NORFOLK SANDY LOAM 



Fig. 1. — Percentage increase in growth of plants attributable to various fertilizer treatments of five 
principal soil types of the Waycross area, Georgia. 

ing fieature manifested in the results recorded in the preceding tables. 
It has also been long contended that there is a relation between the 
origin and the character of the soil and the character of the fertilizer 
that would be required to produce good results. It is doubtful, how- 
ever, if such a claim can be substantiated by observed facts over a 
large territory. It certainly is not borne out by the results obtained 
on the 220 soils here reported, except in case of the muck soils which 
uniformly respond to potash. In fact, the character of the fertilizer 



KELATION OF FERTILIZEE REQUIREMENT TO SOILS. 



45 



required for the same types or series of soils, as found in widely sep- 
arated areas or localities, and as shown by these results, varies more 
than that required for different types and series when they occur in 
the same area or locality. In illustration of this point, five soils from 
Waycross, Ga., tested in triplicate, show a marked uniformity in the 
character of their manurial requirements, regardless of the fact that 
they represent five types and two soil series. The same soils in 
Escambia County, Fla., show manurial requirements of a very differ- 
ent character. (See Table III, p. 15, and figs. 1 and 2.) 

In the Waycross area nitrate of soda is much more effective than 
sulphate of potash, and while lime is decidedly beneficial it is not 

P K N L PK PN KN PKN PKNL M CVL 




£:sc/iAtB//i COUNTY riORj DA 



Fig. 2.— Percentage increase in growth of plants, attributable to various fertilizer treatments for 
soil of the Waycross area, Georgia, and Escambia County, Fla. 

equal to nitrate of soda. In Escambia County sulphate of potash is 
nearly as efficient as nitrate of soda, and lime is about twice as effect- 
ive as the three fertihzer ingredients combined. These differences 
are based on average results for the two areas, and notwithstanding 
that the soils are of the same type, series, and formation, they show as 
marked differences in the character of fertihzer required as will be 
found between any of the areas, even when the soil types are entirely 
different. 

A Cecil sandy loam from Raleigh, N. C, was markedly improved by 
each of the three fertilizer salts, and also by lime, the increased 
growth of plants obtained when all of these ingredients were com- 



46 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

bined being 103 per cent. The same soil type from Lee County, Ala., 
as a result of tests on two samples, gave no response to either potash or 
phosphate, but produced a fair increase in growth as a result of nitrate 
of soda and also for lime, the maximum increase being 40 per cent 
where all three fertilizer salts were used in conjunction with lime. 
(See Table III, p. 15.) 

RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF FERTILIZERS BY LOCALITY. 

In comparing the relative efficiency of the fertilizer ingredients, it 
is found that in the vast majority of instances nitrate of soda ranks 
first and lime second. This is especially true in the southern areas, 
where fertilizers are most extensively used. In the Central and North- 
ern States, where the efficiency is less marked, there are quite a num- 
ber of instances in which potash or phosphate outranks the lime or 
nitrate, although on an average the nitrate holds first rank and lime 
second. Sulphate of potash ranks next to lime, while acid phosphate 
having the lowest value, has in numerous instances shown a slightly 
negative effect. 

With soils from the States of Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, 
Indiana, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania the response to commer- 
cial fertilizers has been moderate, slight, or in many instances almost 
imperceptible. On those soils, also, organic manures, in the form of 
cowpea vines or stable manure, have been very much more effeotive 
than the chemical ones, the mean relative increase attributable to 
manure being nearly three times that for a complete fertilizer with 
lime, i. e., barnyard manure gave an average increase of 38 per cent, 
while the complete fertilizer with lime gave an average increase of 
only 13 iper cent. (See Table XI, from which the averages were com- 
puted.) In these States lime alone seldom showed a marked effect. 
While the tests for these States are insufficient in nund)er to represent 
all soil types and conditions, yet the results are in conformity with 
the general practices of the vast majority of farmers of these sections, 
who as a ride do not purchase commercial fertilizers for use in the 
growing of general farm crops, but who for the most /part recognize 
the high value of barnyard manure and generally utilize all that is pro- 
duced on the farm. 

In the Atlantic and Gulf Coast States, including Kentucky, Tennes- 
see, and Arkansas, for which a larger number of observations have 
been made and where most of the important soil types have been 
tested, the soils, with few exceptions, respond in a marked degree to 
commercial fertilizers and lime, and while cowpea vines and stable 
manure are on an average somewhat superior to commercial fertilizers, 
the difi'erences between the relative value of these materials is small, 
being 54.7 and 58.6 per cent increase in growth for commercial fertil- 
izers and manure, respectively, as compared with 13 and 38 per cent 
for the same materials in the former group of States. (See Table XI, 



rOMPARATTVE FERTILITY OF SOILS. 



47 



from which these averages were computed.) In other words, the 
commercial fertihzers and Hme are more than four times as effective 
on soils of the Altantic and Gulf Coast States as they are on those of 
the Xorth Central ^States, including New York and Pennsylvania, 
while manure, when compared on the same soils, is only a half better 
on the soils from the former States. In this respect the results are 
again in conformit}^ with the practices in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast 
States, where the bulk of the commercial fertilizers are used. 

COMPARATIVE FERTILITY OF SOILS. 

Another point brought out in the tables is the relative fertility or 
crop-3nelding capacity of the untreated soils. Under the prevailing 
condition of crops and climate in the field, marked differences in this 
respect exist, some of the better soils showing a crop-producing 
capacity four or five times as great as that of the poorer ones. In 
these tests, where all soils are put into excellent physical condition 
and where moisture and temperature are always favorable, these dif- 
ferences are less marked but nevertheless exist to a considerable 
degree, as may be seen by comparing the actual weight of plants 
grown on "the untreated soils. The average growth of plants on 
untreated soils from the North-Central States, including New York 
and Pennsylvania, is 28 per cent greater than the average of those 
from the Atlantic and Gulf Coast States. This difference in the initial 
crop-producing capacity of the soils from the two sections as indicated 
in the pots is sufficient to make the actual increase in growth from the 
stable manure nearly as great from one section as from the other. 

Table XI. — Increase in growth attributable to complete fertilizer with lime and manure; 
and proportionate cost of fertilizer to value of crops as obtained from Census, 1900. 



State. 



Missouri 

Indiana 

Ohio 

New York 

Wisconsin 

Indiana 

Mississippi 

Pennsylvania. 

New York 

Missouri 

Texas 

Mississippi 

Arkansas 



Locality. 



Crawford County 

Newton County 

Westerville area 

Binghamton ajea 

Portage County 

Tippecanoe County . . 
Montgomery County . 

do 

Tompkins County 

Scotland County 

San Marcos area 

Pontotoc County 

Prairie County 



Hanover County. . . 

York County 

Caddo Parish 

Rusk County 

McCracken County . 
Cherokee County . . . 
Henderson County . 
Escambia County . . 
Lee County. 



Virginia 

South Carolina . . 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Kentucky 

South Carolina . 

Tennessee 

Florida 

Alabama 

Georgia j Waycross area . 

Virginia ! Louisa County. 

North Carolina 1 New Hanover County . 



Weight 
of plants 
untreat- 
ed soil. 



Grams. 
9.6 
8.8 
7.8 
9.3 
9.0 
6.8 
9.3 
10.1 
7.9 
9.6 
8.5 
6.8 
8.3 

7.5 
6.2 
6.3 
8.0 
5.0 
7.2 
7.5 
6.3 
6.4 
6.0 
5.9 
.-1. 2 



Increase 
from fer- 
tilizer 


Increase 
from 


and lime. 




Per cent. 


Per cent. 





19 


4 


56 


8 


28 


10 


27 


13 


41 


16 


37 


18 


18 


19 


17 


10 


46 


28 


69 


32 


26 


38 


24 


40 


21 


41 


38 


43 


■ 72 


45 


54 


45 


67 


48 


70 


55 


64 


57 


72 


61 


63 


70 


65 


80 


108 


96 


44 


107 


131 



Cost of 
fertilizer 
to value 

of crop. 

Per cent. 

0.23 
.03 
.62 

1.13 
.32 
.39 
.49 

3.28 

1.98 
.08 
.04 
.03 



4.04 

6.34 

.21 

.29 

.22 

5.54 

.10 

6.82 

4.81 

4.45 

4.. 50 

7.82 



48 PERTTLTTY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

RELATIVE RESPONSE TO FERTILIZERS AND EXPENDITURES FOR FER- 
TILIZERS. 

In Table XI, where the average percentage increase in growth 
attributable to the complete fertilizer and lime is given for each area 
and arranged in an ascending series, there is also given the average 
percentage increase attributable to stable manure for the same soils 
as well as the expenditure for commercial fertilizers for the same 
areas or counties. The expenditure for fertilizers in the area is 
expressed in percentage of the valuation of products other than those 
fed to live stock and is computed from statistics reported in the 
United States Census for the year 1900. 

This table, besides showing the relative response to the chemical 
fertilizer and stable manure, which was discussed in preceding pages, 
also brings out the relation between the response to a complete ferti- 
lizer and lime, as obtained by the paraffin pot test, and the expendi- 
ture for fertilizer in each county or area expressed in percentage of the 
valuation of crops produced. 

The table is separated into two portions, the first portion embracing 
13 areas or counties in wliich the increase in growth attributed to a 
complete fertilizer and lime ranges from to 40 per cent, and the 
second portion embracing 12 areas or counties in which the increased 
growth for the same treatment ranges from 41 to 107 per cent. In 
the first portion of the table there are no localities where the valuation 
of commercial fertilizer used equals 4 per cent of the value of the 
products grown, while in the second portion there are only four locali- 
ties where it does not exceed such percentage. In the first portion 
of the table where the response to the fertilizer with lime does not 
exceed 40 per cent there are only three localities where the cost of 
fertilizer actually used in 1900 exceeded 1 per cent of the valuation 
of the crop grown. These exceptions are in New York and Penn- 
sylvania, in areas where special crops probably receive more attention 
than in the others. The one in Pennsylvania was immediately 
about Philadelphia. Their nearness to both the great produce and 
fertilizer markets is also a factor tending to the more extensive use 
of fertilizers. 

Of the four counties in the second portion of the table in wliich the 
cost of fertilizers used does not exceed 4 per cent of the value of crops 
grown, McCracken County, Ky., and Henderson County, Tenn., are 
each represented by only one sample. If better represented, they 
would probably fall in the first portion of the table, as indicated by 
the small amount of fertilizer used. The remaining two counties are 
Caddo Parish, La., and Rusk County, Tex., in each of which cases but 
little commercial fertilizer is used, though they are grouped in the 
second portion of the table as a result of their response to fertilizers in 



EESPONSE TO AND EXPENDITURES FOR FERTILIZERS. 



49 



the pot test. In these two counties the soils were well represented by 
the samples tested, and the results indicate that the moderate use of 
commercial fertilizer might prove profitable. There are other factors, 



Ohio, Westervil/e ^rea 
/no/, h/e avion Co 
Miss-, Moniqomery Co 
Ma, Crain/forc/ Co 
NY. Tomp/iins Co 
Wis , Portage Co 
Po , Moniaomery Co 
A/ y , Bin^howton Area 
Va , Honot^er Co 
/no/. Tippecanoe Co. 
Tenn , Henc/erson Co 
SC. YorA Co 
Ar/< . Proir/e Co 
L a. , Coc/c/o Poris/j 
Mo, Scot /one/ Co- 
Ten , Son Marcos /Irea 
Ky., Mc Croc /(en Co 
SC. C/ieroAee Co 
/l/o . L ee Co 
Tex, Rus/< Co. 
Miss. Pontot oc Co. 
Go. Woycross /Irea 
f/o. £^scam/oi o Co. 
Vo. Louiso Co 
A/ C. New //on over Co 







"=^&S 



°^ 



^^m 




J O 5 10 



P C 



n K ^^^S3 A/ 



L y////^//x 



Fig. 3.— Percentage gain in plant growth attributable to each of the salts P, K, N, and L when used 

alone. 

however, besides the comparative response to fertilizers which are 
concerned in their profitable use. Low value of land, long distance 
from markets and seat of supplies, including fertilizer, would all tend 



50 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



toward the unprofitable use of fertilizers. In Rusk County, Tex., and 
Caddo Parish, La., a few farmers have begun the use of commercial 
fertilizers and find them profitable. 

AVERAGE EFFICIENCY OF FERTILIZER SALTS, BY LOCALITY. 

Figure 3 shows graphically the percentage increase in growth 
attributable to each of the fertilizer salts and lime w^hen used sepa- 
rately, and is based on the average for all soils of each area as given in 
Table X on page 43. The areas are arranged in an ascending series 
according to the aggregate increase from all ingredients, which ranges 
from a minimum of only 9 per cent for the Westerville area, Ohio, to a 
'maximum of 140 per cent for New Hanover County, N. C. The range 
in the efficiency of the individual salts is also marked, the increase 
attributable to nitrate of soda varying from 4 per cent in several of 
the areas in the upper part of the diagram to 65 per cent in New Han- 
over County, N. C, and that for lime varying from a slightly negative 
result for Newton County, Ind., to an increase of .52 per cent for 
Escambia County, Fla., with somewhat lesser variations for potash 
and phosphorus. In the majority of the areas the efficiency of the 
three fertilizer ingredients and lime assume the same order. In 16 of 
the 25 areas, nitrate of soda w^as the dominant salt, while lime was 
dominant in 3 and potash in 3 of the areas. In 14 areas out of 25 
lime ranks second in efficiency. In the States of Indiana, Missouri, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia potash seems to have been relatively 
more effective than elsewhere. In the Arkansas and Florida areas 
lime is largely responsible for their position in the series, and in both 
of them nitrate of soda holds a relativelv low rank. 



Table XII. — Average percentage increase in growth for all fertilizers and combinations, 

by soil series. 





No. 

of 

soils. 


Weight 
of plants 
grown 
on un- 
treated 
soil. 


Increase in growth attributable to— 


Soil series. 


Ph' 


P.ct. 
19 
16 
12 
4 
9 
8 
62 


i^i 


p^ 


Pi 

p.ct. 
53 
34 
32 
23 
15 
10 
33 


M 

p.ct. 
63 
47 
46 
23 
18 
20 
49 


S5 

p- 

P.ct. 

68 
4.5 
52 
31 
19 
12 
60 




Ph 


s 


> 


Portsmouth 

Norfolk 


45 
12 
18 
8 
5 
4 


Grams. 
5.2 
6.3 
6.0 
8.0 
7.9 
7.0 
6.0 


P.ct. 

10 
6 

14 
2 
5 
5 

21 


p.ct. 
43 
35 
36 
20 
11 
16 
27 


p.ct. 

25 

16 

17 

8 

4 

6 

56 


P.ct. 
43 

28 
26 
11 
4 
4 
30 


P.ct. 
96 
64 
69 
37 
19 
8 
60 


p.ct. 

100 
76 
62 
42 
44 
50 
46 


P.ct. 

117 
83 


Cecil 


65 




44 


Miami 


17 




8 


Muck 


39 







EFFICIENCY OF FERTILIZERS, BY SOIL SERIES. 



51 



Table XIII. — Peirentage increase in growth attributable to each fertilizer salt and to 
lime when used alone, as compared with its calculated effect when used in various com- 
binations. Averages for each of six series and Muck. 





L. P. 


K. 


N. 


Soil scries. 


4 


1 ■ 

z 

Ui 

Pk 



■3 


1 
!? 

+ 

1 

w 

Pi 


N 


14 
1 

Z 

+ 


(N 


1 





Zl 
1 1 
!^ 

£■' 
1 


55 

P- 
1 

+ 

p- 


e-i 


P, 
1 

PL, 


i 



■3 


1 

Ph 
+ 

1 

W 


N 


Ph 

1 
Pi 

+ 


(N 


Pi 

1 
W 

p^ 


Portsmouth.. 

Norfolk 

Cecil 


43 

28 
26 
11 
4 
4 
30 


28 
19 
17 
6 

-4 



10 

6 
14 
2 
5 
5 
21 


8 

- i 

i 

3i 

- i 
-4 




Vi 

li 
H 

4 

-2^ 
20 


5 

-2 

t) 


19 
16 
12 


17i 
11 

6* 

41 

3 

25 
28i 


17.J 
14^ 
15* 


15 
11 
20 


43 
35 
36. 
20 
U 
16 
27 


43i 

29J 

26 

20 
9i 
8i 


45| 
32J 
30J 
19 
14* 
12" 
13 


43 
29 
35 


Orangeburg . . 

Miami 

Marshall 

Muck... 


8| 4 

1 ! 9 

-8 '■ 8 

11 62 


4"! -8 

3V 4 

8'^ 2 

36 , 27 


23 
15 
6 
4 

































COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF FERTILIZERS, BY SOIL SERIES. 

Table XII gives the average percentage increase in growth attribu- 
table to each fertilizer salt and combination of salts, by soil series, 
using only those in which the treatments were uniform and complete. 
No series were used where less than 5 samples were available, except 
in the case of Muck, in which only 4 samples were used. 

Table XIII gives the percentage increase in growth attributable to 
each of the three fertilizer ingredients and lime, as compared with 
their effect when used in the combinations, the efficiency in the com- 
binations being calculated by the difference method previously 
explained. These two tables show that the relative efficiency of the 
three salts and lime is essentially the same for all the soil series 
except the Muck. The range of efficiencj^ of the complete fertilizer 
with lime is very marked, varying from a maximum of 96 per cent 
for the Portsmouth series to only 8 per cent for the Marshall series. 
It is noticeable that barnyard manure is relatively much more efficient 
for the Marshall and Miami series than for the others. 

Figure 4 shows graphically the average relative percentage effect- 
iveness of the three fertilizer ingredients and lime by series when used 
separately, as given in Table XIII. The variation in the aggregate 
effectiveness of the three salts and lime for the several series is nearly 
as great as when the soils were grouped by localities. It is evident, 
however, that the serial grouping is, to some extent, a locality group- 
ing also, the Marshall and Miami series, which are the least responsive 
to the commercial fertilizers, occurring only in those States in which 
fertilizers are but little used, wliile the Portsmouth and Norfolk series 
are confined wholly to the Atlantic seaboard, where fertilizers are 
most extensively used. While there is a marked difference in the 
aggregate effectiveness of the three salts and lime on different series, 



52 



FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 



ranging from a minimum of 29 per cent for the Miami series to a 
maximum of 115 per cent for the Portsmouth series, broadly speaking 
the relation between the value of the individual ingredients in the 
several series is remarkably uniform, even more so than occurs when 
the soils are considered by areas. The Muck, represented by only 
4 samples, is exceptional, and shows the characteristic importance 
of potash, that ingredient being on the average about as effective as the 
total of lime, nitrogen, and phosphate. Tliis fact is also in conformity 
with our field knowledge of Muck and Peat, which are greatly bene- 
fited by applications of potash salts. 



Portsmo uth 
Gee// 
A/orfo/k 
Oronoe >6 urq 
Mars/70 // 
M/o/v/ 
A/fuoA so//s 



\})))mM}))} . 



//y/^y/-////^///^/^yy//\ 






^^v^^^ 

H^^^^^^^ 



Wmmwmimm 



O /O 20 

H H H H K I— 



P I I K t.^\\\\\vH N 



L W////A 



Fig. 4. —Relative efficiency of fertilizer ingredients by soil series, when the ingredients are used alone. 

Table XIV. — Average percentage increase ingrowth attributable to each fertilizer salt and 
lime for soils of the Norfolk, Portsmouth. Orangeburg, and Cecil series when classified 
by texture. 







L. 


P. 


K. 


N. 












































12; 










^- 








14 








Soil class . 







^ 
M 




PL, 












•z 
i4 




P^ 








1 




W 













fc 




+ 


Ci 


1 




'Z 




+ 


(N 


1 




(^ 




+ 


01 


1 




Pu 








■3 


1 



c 

"3 


1 

Ui 
p- 




'Z 

p- 
+ 


<M 


1 


C 

"3 


1 

PL. 




•z 
+ 


CM 


1 

•z 

Ph 


01 

a 


"3 


1 

Ph 

•z 




12; 

+ 

Ph 


(M 


1 

Ph 




2 
12 


14 
4.3 


9 
33 


^ 




Pm 




P4 


W 




w 




W 


;^; 




z 




Z 


Coarse sand 


-10 


- 10 

-1.5 


-4 
2 


7 
-1 


8 
16 


5 
10 


s 


1Q 


34 
42 


26 
32.5 


24 
35 


35 


Sand 


16 13 


32 


Fine sand 


17 


;« 


21 


5 


2. .5 


3 


3 


15 


13.5 


15 1 15 


37 


35 


36 


36 


Sandy loam 


17 


14 


11 


6 








4 


9 


7 


11 15 


27 


24 


27 


31 


Fine sandy loam 


25 


22 


13 


8 


3 


5 





13 


8.5 


10 6 


27 


23.5 


2fi 


22 



EFFICIENCY OF FERTILIZER AND SOIL TEXTURE. 



53 



EFFICIENCY OF FERTILIZER AS RELATED TO SOIL TEXTURE. 

Table XIV gives the response to each of the three salts and lime 
when used alone and when in the various combinations for soils of the 
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Cecil, and Orangeburg series when grouped by 
the variation in texture. This grouping of the soil fails to bring out 
any variations in the character of the fertilizer required for the differ- 
ent textures, but it does show in general that the finer the texture of 
the soil, the less marked is the effect of the various fertilizer salts or 
the aggregate effect of them all. 



NATURAL FERTILITY AS RELATED TO RESPONSIVENESS TO FERTILIZERS. 

Another comparison brought out in the general tables is the rela- 
tion between the crop-producing capacity of the untreated soils in the 
pots and their response to fertilizers. In general, the lower the crop 
capacity, the greater the response to fertilizers or manure, and vice 
versa. 

Table XV shows the average effectiveness of a complete fertilizer 
and lime on soils arranged in groups according to the weight of plants 
grown when untreated, and it is shown that there is a gradual and 
consistent decrease in the effect of the treatment, as the untreated 
soils are capable of producing larger plants. 



Table XV. 



-Showing decreasing effect of fertilizers with increasing productiveness in 
untreated samples. 







Average 


Number 
of soils. 


Weight of 
plants on 


gain at- 
tributalile 


untreated soil. 


to fertil- 






izers. 




Grama. 


Per cent. 


23 


3 to 4.9 


87.9 


.35 


5 to 5.9 


68.3 


25 


6 to 6.9 


41.8 


46 


7 to 7.9 


40.1 


33 


8 to 8.9 


23.9 


19 


9 to 9.9 


26.8 


9 


10 to 10. 9 


13.0 


9 


11 to 11.9 


8.4 


7 


12 and over 


3.9 



It is significant that the sandy soils of the Norfolk and Portsmouth 
series, collected from the Southern States where wheat is seldom 
grown, have produced on an average larger and more thrifty wheat 
plants by the application of a complete fertilizer and lime, than have 
been produced by the same or other treatments on soils of the Mar- 
shall or Miami series from Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and New York, 
where wheat does well. This fact is in harmony with the view now 
gaining prevalence, that the variation in the character and composi- 
tion of the mineral matter of soils is of minor importance as regards 
crop adaptation and yielding capacity, except so far as character of 



54 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

material influences condition of the soil in its relation to soil moisture 
and permeability to air, water, and the roots of plants. In other 
words, crop adaptation and crop-producing power depend more upon 
climatic environment and physical condition of the soil than upon soil 
type or the geological formation from which it is derived. The best 
wheat soils or those best suited to peaches or to truck crops are not 
so solely by virtue of the character of the mineral matter of which 
they are composed, but because there are present climatic and soil 
conditions that enable those classes of plants to attain perfection. 

The poorest soils, by proper nianipulation and the addition of suit- 
able manure or fertilizer, can be made to produce as large yields in 
the pots as can be procured by the same or other treatments on the 
best soils that occur, and yet such applications have but slightly 
altered the composition of the soil. Such, improvement does not 
involve any considerable length of time, but may be brought about 
in a few days or at most a few weeks. This does not mean that it 
would be either feasible or practical to attempt such a radical change 
under field conditions in so short a time. The expense involved 
would not justify the procedure, neither would the soil be able to 
maintain such an ideal condition under the adverse climatic condi- 
tions which might prevail or against the poor systems of farming in 
vogue. The improvement of soil conditions in the field becomes a 
purely business proposition in which the expense involved must not 
exceed probable returns. 

Important in this connection is the assembling and association of 
all those factors that will work together for the good of the soil, such 
as the selection of suitable crops, the use of a proper rotation, the 
adoption of catch and winter cover crops, and cultivation of such 
character that erosion will be reduced to a minimum and the ramfall 
absorbed and retained in ample supply. By such procedure the con- 
dition of a soil will in time become greatly modified and its fertility 
improved. So-called soil robbery is, after all, more properly soil 
mutilation, brought about by the carelessness of man. 

FERTILIZERS AND ECONOMY OF WATER IN PLANT GROWTH. 

It has been stated that no attempt will be made to explain how 
fertilizers efl^ect an increase in plant growth, yet there is one point 
which has been established as a result of this investigation of which 
mention should be made. It is the relation between growth, as 
effected by fertilizers, and water transpired by the plants or used in 
the process of their growth. In all of the tests a careful record has 
been kept of the water transpired for each of the 13,000 or more pots. 
As a result of such observations, it has been found that as fertilizers 
increase plant growth, there is a marked diminution in the water 
transpired per unit of growth; or, putting it in the reverse order. 



FERTILIZERS AND WATER IN PLANT GROWTH. 



55 



there is a marked increase in growth for a unit of water used, and 
such increase becomes greater as the fertihzers are more effective. 
As a result of computations for twenty soils taken at random, it was 
found that the percentage increase in growth for a unit of water used' 
equaled, approximately, one-half of the total increase in growth 
resulting from the fertilizer treatments. 

Figure 5 gives the average results for 20 soils and shows not only 
the gain in growth following the fertilizer treatments, but also shows 
the associated increase in growth per unit of water transpired. 



psrtiiizer 



ffelatcife 

of ferti./ 
nerj 



Rfiatli/f 

groin'th 

per unit 
of tyatrr 
trans/oired 



fielattye 
transpira 
on per 
iitoft/r^fn 



Unfertilized 

P 

K 

f<P 

L 

N 

NP 

NPK 

NK 

NPKL 

M 

Cv.L 



100 

104 

//J 

118 

127 

146 

144 

162 

/64 

173 

I9i 

197 



100 
105 
/07 
108 
106 
116 
119 
126 
126 
129 
166 
/45 



100 
910 
96.6 
92.6 
97.0 
66.2 
84.0 
816 
80.0 
77.6 
74.1 
69.9 




O i 10 20 JO 40 SO go n 80 30 100 



^^ 



Transpira ti on 



Green 



t^ht 



FlQ. S.^Percentage increase in growth of plants attributable to fertilizer and aocompanying increase 
por unit of water transpired. Average of 20 soils. 

Excepting lime, in the presence of which transpiration remains 
nearly normal, the different fertilizer constituents show no marked 
variation in respect to this phenomenon. Lime frequently produces 
an increase in growth and yet the plants maintain practically the 
same rate of transpiration per unit of growth as that observed for the 
untreated soil. 

In a few miscellaneous tests, where the different forms of potash 
were tried, it was found that kainit and muriate of potash decreased 
the rate of transpiration per unit of growth, as compared with sul- 
phate of potash. 



56 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

While these observations have no economic significance in the 
pots where moisture content is always ample, they may be of con- 
siderable importance in relation to the use of fertilizers in the field 
and explain, in part, the benefits derived therefrom. It frequently 
happens, owing to scanty rainfall, or a low water-holding capacity 
of the soil, that the available water supply is the limiting factor in 
crop yields. Where such conditions exist, and they occur frequently 
in all parts of the country, the presence of a fertilizer which would 
enable the crop to economize in its water consumption would be of 
considerable importance and might, as pointed out above, enable 
the crop to make a marked increase in growth despite the limited 
water supply. 

SUMMARY. 

The paraffin-pot method of testing the manurial requirements of 
soils, used in these investigations, while not designed to supersede 
field tests, is admirably adapted to an investigation of this kind and 
is very useful as a method of indicating what fertilizers should be used 
in the field. 

The results obtained in the pots with the various ingredients are 
relatively the same as those obtained in the field, but may differ in 
degree. This is true of all ingredients commonly used except the 
phosphates, which give a relatively lower effect in the pots than the 
others. The absolute effect is usually greater in the field than in the 
pots and phosphates may frequently be economically used where 
their benefits are not indicated by the pots. 

The results obtained in the pots generally agree mth the fertilizer 
practices in the various sections from which the soils were secured. 
In the North Central States, where but little commercial fertihzer is 
used, and where the main dependence is placed upon barnyard 
manure, the pot tests show manure to be three times as efficient as the 
fertilizer. In the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf Coast States, where but 
little manure is available, and where the main dependence is upon com- 
mercial fertilizers, the manure as tested in the pots has been only 
slightly superior to the fertilizers. Muck, quite generally recognized 
as in need of potash in the field, has shown that ingredient to be 
nearly as efficient as lime, nitrate, and phosphate combined, as deter- 
mined by the pot tests. 

Transpiration, while a good indicator of the relative growth of 
plants when under like conditions, usually gives a range of lesser 
magnitude than the variation by green weights. 

The green weight of plants grown for about twenty-five days in the 
pots occasionally equals or exceeds 1 per cent of the weight of the soil 
in which they grew. Such plants contain about 85 per cent of water 
and transpire approximately 100 grams of water for each gram of 



SUMMAKY. 57 

green matter produced. The dry matter of such plants is richer in 
mineral constituents and nitrogen than that of the same plants if 
matured. The draft on the water and mineral constituents of the soil 
under these conditions is greater than that occasioned by the removal 
of a large and matured crop under field conditions. 

As an average of all tests, the organic manures have outranked the 
chemical ones. Barnyard manure and cowpea vines with lime tie for 
first rank. The three chemical salts with lime rank third and the 
same salts without lime rank fourth. 

Of the combinations of chemical salts the order of efficiency is as 
follows: The three salts with lime, first; three salts alone, second; 
potash and nitrate, third; phosphate and nitrate, fourth, and phos- 
phate and potash, fifth. 

Of the salts used individually the order is nitrate, lime, potash, and 
phosphate; nitrate being the most efficient and phosphate the least 
efficient. 

As an average result of all tests, nitrate of soda has produced a 
marked increase in growth which has not been further increased by 
the addition of acid phosphate. Potash has produced a moderate 
increase in growth and when supplemented by nitrate the effect has 
been slightly less than the aggregate of these two ingredients when 
used separately. The efficiency of the combination of nitrate and 
potash has not been appreciably improved by the addition of phos- 
phate. 

Lime alone has generally produced a marked increase in growth and 
has usually increased the efficiency of a complete fertilizer. There 
is but little evidence that the benefits derived from lime are due to 
beneficial action on nitrification. 

Soils vary greatly in crop-producing capacity as found under field 
conditions. Part of such variation is due to physical condition and 
consequent relation to water, and is largely overcome in the pots. 
After these conditions are largely equalized in the pots marked differ- 
ences in crop-yielding capacity still exist to such an extent that good 
soils may produce four or five times as large a growth as that produced 
on very poor soils under the same conditions. By the application of 
suitable manures or fertilizers these differences are overcome, and in 
the pots the poorest soils when treated with suitable substances 
become as productive as the best ones. 

Soils vary greatly in the degree to which they respond to commer- 
cial fertilizers, lime, manure, and green manure. In general, the 
degree of response varies inversely as the crop-yielding capacity and 
ranges from zero to several hundred per cent. The soils of the At- 
lantic and GuK Coast States are much more responsive than those 
of the Central and Northern States. 



58 FERTILITY OF SOILS AS AFFECTED BY MANURES. 

In 60 per cent of the soils here tested, each fertihzer salt appears 
to have a special function, so far as it influences the growth of plants, 
which is not materially modified by the addition or withholdino; of 
the other salts. In 29 per cent of the soils the functions of the 
several salts, as affecting the growth of plants, are more or less inter- 
changeable, there being quite a number of instances when each salt 
used alone gave as large an increase in growth as was secured by com- 
bining three of them. In 11 per cent of the soils each salt not only 
has a distinct function, but it is dependent upon the presence of 
others for its fvillest effect as shown by a much greater efficiency 
when used in combination than when used alone. There is no ap- 
parent relation either by soil type or by locality to this grouping of 
the soils. 

The variation in the efficiency of a fertilizer salt as used alone and 
in combination with various other salts bears no consistent relation 
to the efficiency of the associated salts or to the efficiency of the 
combination as a whole. 

In the pots, as an average of all tests, the aggregate efficiency of 
the several salts when used separately is slightly greater than when 
the same salts are used in combination. Under field conditions, as 
an average of many tests, the aggregate of individuals is the same 
as when used in combination. Individual soils show wide variation 
in respect to tliis point. 

The character of fertilizer indicated for a specific soil type as it 
occurs in widely separated localities usually varies more than that 
for very dift'erent types when in the same locality and subjected to 
similar environment. 

The character of fertilizer indicated for various soil series is essen- 
tially the same, although the response to such a fertilizer varies 
greatly. 

In general, the fmer the texture of soils the less responsive are 
they to fertilizers, although the character of fertilizer indicated 
remains the same. 

With few exceptions the character of fertilizer required for soils 
depends more upon local conditions and practices than it does upon 
the type of soil or the geological formation to which it belongs. 
The Muck soils are an exception and show a universal response to 
potash salts. 

The condition of the soil is of greater importance than its chemical 
composition. 

Without materially changing the composition of the soil, poor 
soils by proper manipulation and suitable applications can be made 
to produce as large crops in the pots as can be grown on the best 
soils by the same or other treatments. 



SUMMAKY. 59 

Fertilizers when effective aid plants to economize in the use of 
water. 

In conclusion it may be said that the crop-yielding capacity of 
soils is increased by improving their physical condition and by sup- 
plying manures or fertilizers. Frequently both are necessary, and 
the latter may assist the former. By the employment of both meth- 
ods poor soils may become as productive as the best ones. There is 
but little to indicate any relation between the formation and char 
acter of the soil and character of fertilizer to which it will respond. 
Usually soils of a limited locality, where climatic condition and farm 
practices are uniform, show but little difference in the character of 
fertilizer required, although the degree of response may vary greatly 
for different fields, making their use profitable in some instances and 
unprofitable in others. Except in the most general way, the ferti- 
lizer requirement of soils becomes a problem for each farm or for 
each class of farms under like conditions of soil, climate, and system 
of cropping and fertilization. The indications are that fertilizers 
containing relatively more potash and nitrogen than do those now 
in general use would prove more effective. This conclusion (to 
which exception might be taken by some because of the fact that 
phosphates are known to be economically used on some soils that 
fail to respond to that salt in the pots) is not based alone on the 
result of this investigation, but upon the tendency of the more pro- 
gressive planters to use a higher grade fertilizer, i. e., one containing 
relatively more nitrogen and potash than that used in the past. 
Lime has proved quite generally beneficial, being on an average more 
effective than both potash and phosphate. 

O 



LEJe'08 



^4. 



^ 



